"He didn't become sober": the driver was deprived of his license under an invalid law
A reference in the materials of a court case to an invalid regulatory legal act cannot be a basis for declaring a court decision invalid. This decision was made by the Supreme Court, considering the complaint of a driver deprived of his license on the basis of an invalid government decree. Lawyers and experts are ambivalent about this decision. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
Refused to breathe
In March last year, when checking documents in the Leningrad region, traffic police officers suspected that the driver was driving drunk. There was a clear smell of alcohol coming from the motorist, he had a "sharp change in the color of the skin of his face." The police offered him to undergo an examination for intoxication, which the driver refused. On this basis, the magistrate of the Volkhovsky district of the Leningrad region in May 2024 found the driver guilty of traffic violations and, according to Part 1 of Article 12.26 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation ("Failure by the driver of the vehicle to comply with the lawful requirement of an authorized official to undergo a medical examination for intoxication") deprived him of his rights for one year and seven months, as well as He imposed a fine of 30,000 rubles.
The motorist disagreed with the decision and challenged it first in the Volkhov City Court of the Leningrad Region, and then in the Third Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction. In his opinion, the justice of the peace's decision was illegal because it was based, among other things, on the "Rules for examining a person who drives a vehicle for alcohol intoxication ..." (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated August 26, 2008 No. 475. At the same time, the driver noted that at the time of the decision by the justice of the peace, this document had not been in force for more than a year (it became invalid on March 1, 2023), and a new version of the "Rules" was already in force, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 21, 2022 No. 1882. However, it was the invalid resolution No. 475 that appeared in the court decision.
However, the judges did not agree with the driver's arguments, so he appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC RF) with a demand to cancel the illegal, in his opinion, decision of the justice of the peace.
There is no reason to
Having reviewed the case materials, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also found no legal grounds for satisfying the complaint and overturning the decisions of the lower authorities. The judge of the Supreme Court noted that when sending a driver suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol for a medical examination, the procedural procedure and the established requirements were observed and fulfilled in accordance with the current version of the "Rules".
"The reference in the decision of the justice of the peace dated May 17, 2024 to the "Rules" <...>, which became invalid on March 01, 2023, given that the new procedure for conducting an alcohol intoxication examination and processing its results and sending for a medical examination for intoxication remained essentially the same as previously applied, is not a significant procedural violation, entailing the unconditional cancellation of this resolution," the Supreme Court said in its decision.
As a result, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the complaint and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Signed it without looking
In his decision, the justice of the peace made a technical error, which in this case did not change the essence of the judicial act itself and did not affect its legality, said Sergey Radko, a lawyer for the Freedom of Choice movement.
— Since the procedure itself, when the traffic police offered the driver to undergo an examination, was carried out without violations, in compliance with all applicable regulations, the Supreme Court in this situation decided that it was wrong to cancel the punishment for the driver who refused a sobriety check. Moreover, the adoption of a new government decree regulating the inspection procedure was actually a technical revision: the previous version of the document expired, but the rules themselves have not changed. However, the fact that the justice of the peace issued a decision in which reference was made to an invalid regulatory act is incorrect," Sergei Radko told Izvestia.
The lawyer said that in the vast majority of cases, such decisions are written, as they say, "carbon copy": they change only the names of the defendants and other circumstances of the case.
— Most likely, the decision was drawn up according to some kind of template, in which the same invalid document was indicated. The judge, signing the decision, apparently did not even bother to read what was written in it," the lawyer suggested.
The essence has not changed
The World Court, basing its decision on an invalid document, made a very serious and gross mistake, said Igor Morzharetto, a member of the presidium of the Public Council under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. However, in this situation, it did not affect the essence of the matter, he believes.
— The driver did not become sober from this mistake, therefore it is quite logical that the Supreme Court did not cancel the decision of the lower instance, even though it contains an invalid regulatory legal act. The error of the court of first instance is certainly unacceptable. But in this particular case, it is still more formal than factual," Igor Morzharetto believes.
Maxim Kadakov, editor-in-chief of Za Rulem magazine, also believes that "due to the indication of the wrong document in the court decision, the driver did not become more sober."
Legally
An intoxicated driver, like a driver who refused to undergo a sobriety check, should certainly be responsible for this, said Anton Shaparin, vice-president of the National Automobile Union. However, the decision to punish such a motorist must be made in compliance with all legal requirements and on the basis of laws, orders, instructions and other regulations in force at the time of the offense, he emphasizes.
— In this case, the Supreme Court did the right thing by not allowing the "refusenik" to escape responsibility. But the reference made by the justice of the peace to an invalid normative act is a blatant violation of all principles of judicial procedure and jurisprudence. He might as well have made a decision based on the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR of May 24, 1956 "On measures to combat accidents in motor transport and urban electric transport," which introduced liability in the form of deprivation of driving rights, Anton Shaparin told Izvestia.
According to him, the decision made by the justice of the peace of the Volkhovsky district of the Leningrad region clearly demonstrates the situation with the consideration of "automobile" cases in the courts. Given the huge number of such administrative materials, judges do not have enough time not only to understand the circumstances of the case in detail, but even to simply re-read their own decision, the NAS Vice president believes.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
