Case regarding imposing a penalty upon the owner of a vehicle for administrative road traffic violations initiated
On 1 July 2013 the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated Case “On the Compliance of Section of 432 the Road Traffic Law, insofar it affects the rights of the vehicle owner in administrative violations record-keeping, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
The Contested Norm
Section 432 of the Road Traffic Law regulates the procedure for imposing a penalty for the violation of regulation on stopping and parking a vehicle. The norm, inter alia, provides, that if the fine imposed is not paid within the set term, the prohibition for the vehicle to undergo technical inspection and to conduct other activities comes into force, but the fine must be collected from the owner of the vehicle.
The Norm of Higher Legal Force
Article 92 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until his or her guilt has been established in accordance with law. Everyone, where his or her rights are violated without basis, has a right to commensurate compensation. Everyone has a right to the assistance of counsel.“
The Facts
The applicant Inese Nikuļceva notes that a vehicle, which she owns, had been parked ignoring the requirements of the road traffic rules, and the driver of the vehicle had been imposed a penalty for it. At the concrete moment the vehicle had been transferred to another person.
The Applicant maintains that she has no possibility to inform the State Police about the person, who at that moment had been in charge of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle has the obligation to ensure that the fine is paid, however, before the fine is imposed the owner is neither heard, nor informed about the imposition of the fine. Even information about the imposed fine is not sent to the owner of the vehicle (pursuant to the contested norm, in case if the fine is not paid within the term specified by law, a notification on the unpaid fine is sent to the owner).
Thus, the contested norm infringes upon the applicant’s right to fair court.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the Saeima to provide a written reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 1 September 2013.
The term for preparing the case is 1 December 2013.
Linked case: 2013-12-01