Constitutional Court
2 October 2001
Facts
The case was initiated by the District Administrative Court, which asked the Constitutional Court to examine whether the provision of the Code of Administrative Offences, which states that if a fine is imposed, the driver’s licence shall not be returned until the fine has been paid, conflicts with the Constitution.
Complaint
In the applicant's view, the imposition of a fine on a driver imposes on him, until the moment of its execution, an additional restriction on rights which is not provided for in the sanction provided for in the article of the offence committed. Article 31 (5) of the Constitution provides that no one may be punished for the same offence a second time. The imposition of a fine, by reason of the non-return of the driver’s licence pending payment of the fine, constitutes a restriction on a person's right to travel abroad by car.
Court‘s ruling
The non-return of the driver’s licence is a measure to ensure the administration of administrative proceedings. The contested provision does not regulate the imposition of an administrative penalty for an offence but rather the enforcement of the administrative penalty imposed. The measure’s purpose is to ensure that the fine imposed is paid.
The right to leave Lithuania freely means that there can be no permissive procedure for leaving Lithuania, i.e. no procedure that requires a citizen to seek permission from a state authority to leave Lithuania. The constitutional right to leave Lithuania freely implies that the State is obliged to establish a procedure for leaving Lithuania in such a way that the citizen is not subject to unjustified restrictions.
The law must strike a fair balance between the interests of society and those of the individual in imposing liability for an infringement of a right, as well as in its enforcement, to avoid unjustified restrictions on the rights of the individual. According to this principle, the law may restrict a person's rights only to the extent necessary to protect the public interest, and there must be a reasonable relationship between the means chosen, the legitimate aim pursued and the objective of general interest. To achieve this objective, measures may be adopted which are sufficient and do not restrict the rights of the individual beyond what is necessary. The right to drive is an acquired right. It is evidenced by a driver’s licence. Failure to return the driver’s licence until the fine imposed has been paid and the issue of a temporary driver’s permit constitute a restriction of the acquired right, since only a temporary authorisation to use the right is imposed, but deprivation of the right to drive is not imposed as an administrative sanction.
Failure to return a driver’s license until the fine has been paid essentially means that a person cannot use the document certifying their right to drive a vehicle abroad. A temporary driver’s permit also means that the exercise of the person's right to drive a vehicle in Lithuania is restricted, as such a permit is only valid temporarily and must be renewed.
The court concluded that the provision of the Code contradicts the principle of the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution.