Without a wife to blame: a reckless driver's roommate was deprived of a car
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation allowed cars to be confiscated in favor of the state for certain traffic violations, even if they were not driven by the owners themselves, but by other people, for example, one of the common-law spouses. Lawyers and experts have mixed opinions about this decision. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
Double complaint
In September last year, in Tyumen, the court recognized the driver Orlov (last name changed. — Izvestia) guilty under Part 2 of Article 264.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ("Driving while intoxicated by a person who has been subjected to administrative punishment or has a criminal record"). Since in 2022 the defendant had already been prosecuted for a similar crime, in addition to imprisonment for one year and ten months, the court decided to confiscate in favor of the state the car he was driving drunk.
The convict challenged the confiscation of the car first in the Tyumen Regional Court, and then in the Seventh Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction, arguing that the vehicle did not belong to him, but to his cohabitant Ivanova (surname changed. — Izvestia). However, these authorities did not find grounds to change the decision on confiscation, so Orlov appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Ivanova, as an interested party, filed a similar cassation appeal, in which she also challenged the validity of the confiscation of the car, which belongs to her by right of ownership.
Marriage is optional
After reviewing the case materials, the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court (SC RF) concluded that there were no grounds for satisfying the complaints. The court's decision to confiscate the car is lawful and motivated, the Russian Armed Forces noted.
The members of the judicial board drew attention to the explanations given by Orlov and Ivanova during the meeting. So, Orlov said that he bought this car on credit, issued it first to his brother. Subsequently, Orlov reissued the vehicle to his cohabitant Ivanova. Ivanova herself explained in court that the confiscated car is shared with the Orlov property, they jointly bear the costs of its repair and maintenance. In addition, she acknowledged the fact of running a joint household with Orlov.
"The establishment of the fact that property is in the common ownership of several persons, including those who are in a de facto marital relationship, does not exclude the possibility of confiscation of this property. Thus, it follows from the decisions of the courts of the first, appellate and cassation instances that the courts not only established the existence of the requirements specified in the law for the confiscation of property, but also established with sufficient certainty that the confiscated vehicle belonged to the convicted person," the ruling of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation says.
In addition, as the Supreme Court noted, "the regular use of this car by convicts is also evidenced by the facts of repeated commission of administrative offenses and crimes using this car." As a result, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the complaint and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Judicial expediency
Sergei Radko, a lawyer for the Freedom of Choice movement, calls the Supreme Court's decision ambiguous. The current legislation allows for the confiscation of vehicles belonging to the accused and used by him in the commission of a crime under Articles 264.1, 264.2 or 264.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, he recalls.
— In this situation, both the convicted driver and his roommate actually stated during the court session that the car was their common property. And since the Plenum of the Supreme Court had previously decided to confiscate a car owned by the spouses in a similar situation, a similar decision was made in this case. In fact, we are talking about the so—called "judicial expediency," Sergei Radko told Izvestia.
Full and unconditional confiscation
From a legal point of view, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is controversial, says Maxim Kadakov, editor—in-chief of Za Rulem magazine. However, from the standpoint of combating drunk driving, it is fully justified, he emphasizes. In his opinion, the current law regarding the confiscation of cars from drunk drivers is too lenient.
— In my opinion, if the actions of a drunk motorist fall under a criminal article providing for the confiscation of a vehicle, it should be seized, regardless of who formally owns it. If the owner allowed that an intoxicated person was driving his car, who had already been involved "for drunkenness," then let him deal with him later, and file a claim for compensation for the cost of the car. In this case, the car itself should be confiscated without any reservations," Maxim Kadakov believes.
The problem of drunkenness at the wheel is quite serious, says Igor Morzharetto, a member of the Presidium of the Public Council under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. The active fight against drunk drivers is yielding results: the number of accidents involving them has been steadily decreasing over the past few years, he recalls. However, the fight against them must be conducted in strict accordance with the law, the expert notes. The principle of "the end justifies the means" is absolutely unacceptable here, emphasizes Igor Morzharetto.
— There are examples of countries where cars have already been confiscated from drunk drivers, but in the end this measure was abandoned. In some cases, the seizure of cars from such drivers conflicts with issues of property rights and other basic rights of a citizen," Igor Morzharetto, a member of the Presidium of the Public Council under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, told Izvestia.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
