The norm regarding collection of penalty for violating the regulation on stopping or parking a vehicle from the owner of a vehicle is incompatible with the Satversme
On 24 April 2014 the Constitutional Court passed the judgement in Case No. 2013-12-01 “On the Compliance of Section 432 of 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”.
If the driver, who is not the owner of the vehicle, does not pay the penalty voluntarily, the administrative liability, essentially, is transferred upon the vehicle owner, who has no possibility to be heard.
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 register it in the national register of vehicles and their drivers comes into force. Moreover, the fine is to be collected from the vehicle owner.
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 a counsel.”
The Facts
The applicant Inese Nikuļceva notes that another person, using a vehicle she owned, committed an administrative violation by parking the car in a place where parking was prohibited.
Pursuant to the contested norm, the owner of the vehicle has the obligation to ensure that the fine is paid; however, before imposing the penalty he or she is neither heard, nor informed that the fine has been imposed; the owner is informed only if the imposed fine has not been paid.
Thus, the contested norm violates the applicant’s right to a fair court.
Court Findings and Ruling
On the content of the contested norm
The Constitutional Court noted that both the legal regulation and the case law confirms that the driver of the vehicle, who has been imposed the administrative penalty, should be considered as the party having committed the administrative violation, not the vehicle owner. [12.1] Whereas the contested norm envisages that the obligation of the person, who has committed the administrative violation – the offender, to pay the imposed fine, in case it is not done, is transferred upon the vehicle owner [12.2], but the owner, who at the moment when the administrative violation was committed, was not driving the vehicle, has no right to contest and appeal against the report – notification, by which the decision on applying the fine has been taken. [12.3]
On the restriction to the fundamental right
The Constitutional Court recognised that the contested norm restricted the applicant’s right to access to court and the right to be heard. [13.2]
In assessing the validity of the restriction to the fundamental right, the Court recognised that the contested norm was clear and predictable for the vehicle owner [15], that it had a legitimate aim – to protect other persons’ rights. The restriction set out by the contested norm has the aim to ensure faster processing of administrative violations cases, when the regulation of stopping or parking a vehicle has been violated, thus facilitating procedural economy. Moreover, its aim is to ensure more effective and complete enforcement of administrative penalties. At the same time it serves as an incentive for the vehicle owners to be more careful in selecting the person, to whom the vehicle can be trusted, thus reducing the possibility that the regulation on stopping or parking a vehicle would be violated and the life, health or property of other persons were threatened. [16, 18] However, the restriction established by the contested norm is incompatible with the principle of proportionality. [20]
If the driver fails to pay the fine voluntarily, the administrative liability, essentially, is transferred from the offender upon the vehicle owner, who has no possibilities to be heard. Since the vehicle owner does not have the possibility to contest and appeal the report-notification at a higher institution (official), he or she has no right to express his or her opinion about the recorded circumstances prior the term set for the driver to pay the fine has expired. Thus, he or she has no possibility to verify the legality of the procedural documents drawn up by the responsible institution (official). [20.2]
The Constitutional Court concluded that the benefit that society gained by imposing the obligation upon the vehicle owner to ensure that the fine for the violation, which he or she did not commit, was paid, manifested itself as the simplification of the procedure taking place at a state institution. However, it cannot be recognised that the benefit ensured to society by the contested norm exceeds the harm caused to a vehicle owner. [20.4]
Thus, the Constitutional Court recognised that the contested norm placed disproportional restrictions upon the fundamental rights of the vehicle owner, if the violation was committed by a driver, who had the vehicle in his or her legal possession, and thus was incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme.
On becoming invalid
The Constitutional Court provided that with regard to the applicant the contested norm became invalid as of 1 December 2011– the date when the administrative offence was committed.
To ensure that the contested norm complies with the Satversme, the Saeima shall by 1 November 2014 introduce amendments to regulatory enactments.
The Court held that until the moment the legislator had amended the contested norm, the vehicle owner, who was not driving the vehicle when the regulation of stopping or parking a vehicle was violated, had to be given the right to contest and appeal against the report-notification, by which the fine was imposed.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal, it comes into force as of the day of its pronouncement.
Linked case: 2013-12-01