The Constitutional Court initiated a case on a norm of the Road Traffic Law
On 27 June 2012, the Second Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of Section 43.6 Indent 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the Road Traffic Law with Article 92[1] of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
Section 43.6 indent 3 of the Road Traffic Law provides for details of an administrative violations report in If an offence has been recorded with technical means (photo devices or video devices), without the stopping of a vehicle;
indent 5 provides that a report – decision shall be sent to the holder indicated in the vehicle registration certificate or if a holder is not indicated – to the owner (possessor) of the vehicle not later than within seven working days after the taking of the decision. If an offence is committed with a vehicle that is permanently registered abroad but permission has been received for its use in Latvia in cases established in Section 9 (5) of the same Law, a report – decision shall be sent to a person that has received the permission. If an offence is committed with a vehicle that has been transferred for sale (registration number has been set up or the vehicle has been registered in the trade registry), a report – decision shall be sent to the merchant who performs sale of a respective vehicle. The report – decision shall be valid without the signature of the official applying a fine. The report – decision shall become valid on the seventh day after its submission to the post office;
indent 7 provides: f the imposed fine is not paid within the time period specified in the Latvian Administrative Violation Code, a notation shall be made in the State register of vehicles and the drivers thereof or the information system for the tractor-type machinery and the drivers thereof regarding a prohibition until the fine is paid to perform the State technical inspection for the vehicle with which the offence was committed, and to register it in the State register of vehicles and the drivers thereof or the information system for the tractor-type machinery and the drivers thereof. Such notation regarding the prohibition to perform the State technical inspection of the vehicle shall not be made or also the notation done shall be extinguished if it is determined that at the moment of committing the offence the vehicle was not in the possession of the owner (holder, possessor) due to the unlawful activity of other persons;
whilst indent 8 establishes: if the fine imposed for the offence, which is recorded with technical means (photo devices or video devices), without stopping the vehicle has not been paid within the time period specified in the Latvian Administrative Violation Code, it shall be recovered from the holder indicated in the vehicle registration certificate or if a holder is not indicated – to the owner (possessor) of the vehicle, except in the case when at the moment of committing the offence the vehicle was not in the possession of the owner (holder, possessor) due to the unlawful activity of other persons.
The Facts
The Applicant – the Ombudsman of the Republic of Latvia holds that, pursuant to the presumption of innocence established in the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme, the State is committed to prove the guilt of a person for having committed an offence rather than a person should prove his or her innocence. Namely, innocence is presumed unless the contrary is proved. According to the Applicant, if a person is recognized as guilty for having committed an offence although there are no proves that would testify his or her guilt, this is at variance with the presumption of innocence.
Likewise, the Applicant draws attention to the fact that the right to protection of interests in a fair trial guaranteed in Article 92 of the Satversme depends on the ability of a person to contest a decision; however, the present order prohibits owners or registered holders of a vehicle implementing their fundamental rights in case of their innocence, provided that the guilty person fails to pay the fine according to the established procedure and within the established term.
Legal Proceedings
The Saeima [Parliament] was asked to provide, before 29 August 2012, a reply with the facts of the case and legal substantiation thereof.
The term of preparation of the case is 29 November 2012.
[1] Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia: „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.”
Linked case: 2012-15-01