Constitutional Court
25 September 2012
Facts
The district courts that initiated the case asked the Court to examine the constitutionality of the provision of the Code of Administrative Offences according to which persons who commit an offence (repeated driving under the influence of alcohol) may not be sentenced to a lesser penalty than the minimum penalty provided for in the sanction or be sentenced to no administrative penalty at all.
Complaint
According to the applicants, to ensure a fair trial and an effective defence of the owner's rights, the owner of the vehicle must be given the opportunity to prove that he is not responsible for the use of the property in the commission of the offence, but even if the owner proves that they are not responsible for the use of the vehicle in the commission of the offence, the court may not disregard the disputed provision of the Code and not impound the vehicle.
Court’s ruling
According to the Constitution and the constitutional principle of the rule of law, the law establishing the administrative legal liability of persons may not provide for such legal regulation (penalties, their amounts) that the court, considering all the relevant circumstances of the case, cannot individualise the penalty. The legal framework must enable the court to investigate all the circumstances relevant to the case and to reach a correct decision.
The Court noted that, when individualising the penalties, the courts must carefully assess the gravity of the risk that the infringement poses to the human rights and freedoms, public and state interests in the particular case; the cases in which an infringement may be punishable by a penalty lower than the minimum penalty laid down in the sanction or sanction not be applied, should be exceptional.
The Court found that the provisions of the Code did not provide the courts with sufficient conditions for individualising decisions and liability and declared the provisions unconstitutional.