Search

On Compliance of the Third, Fifth, Seventh and the Eighth Part of Section 43.6 of Road Traffic Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 43 6 of Road Traffic Law, insofar it does not envisage the right to contest and appeal the report-decision to the owner (possessor) of a mechanical vehicle, who has not been the driver of the vehicle at the moment of committing the violation, which was recorded by technical means (photo or video equipment), without stopping the vehicle, as incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 October 2013, unless the legislator has improved the regulation envisaged by the legal acts in conformity with the instructions included in this Judgement.
2. To recognise Section 436 of the Road Traffic Law, insofar it regulates recording the violations of road traffic rules with technical means (photo or video equipment), without stopping the vehicle, as well as regulation on applying and enforcing the penalty, in the remaining part as compatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To establish that until the moment the deficiencies of the aforementioned legal regulation are rectified, the fundamental rights envisaged in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia of the persons referred to in Para 1 of the part of Ruling of this Judgement, shall be ensured by granting to them the same rights to contest and appeal the report-decision, which have been envisaged to the driver of the vehicle, who at the moment of recording the violation with technical means (photo and video equipment, without stopping the vehicle, was driving the vehicle.