Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Article 1302 of the Republic
of Lithuania Code of Administrative Violations of
Law (wording of 18 July 1994) with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius, 7 May 2001
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Egidijus
Jarašiūnas, Egidijus Kūris, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas
Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Vytautas
Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Teodora Staugaitienė,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representative of the party concerned Pranas
Petkevičius, a senior consultant to the Law Department of the
Office of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania,
pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, on 2
May 2001 in its public hearing conducted the investigation of
Case No. 26/99 subsequent to the petition submitted to the
Court by the petitioner-the Šiauliai City District
Court-requesting investigation into the compliance of Article
1302 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Administrative
Violations of Law (wording of 18 July 1994) with Paragraph 5 of
Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The petitioner-the Šiauliai City District Court-was
investigating a civil case regarding the imposition of an
administrative penalty. By its ruling the said court suspended
the investigation of the case and appealed to the
Constitutional Court requesting investigation into the
compliance of Article 1302 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of
Administrative Violations of Law (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1994, No. 58-1132) (hereinafter also referred to as the
CAVL) with Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the Constitution.
II
The request of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
Under Article 1302 of the CAVL, in cases of systematic
violation of the Road Traffic Rules, i.e. commission of several
violations during one year which are provided for in Paragraphs
2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 124, Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article
1241 and Article 125 of the CAVL when the sum of points imposed
for which is ten and more, the drivers shall be deprived of the
right to drive a vehicle for one year. In the opinion of the
petitioner, the person who has been already punished for the
violations is imposed an administrative punishment for the sum
of committed violations.
Article 5 of Article 31 of the Constitution provides that
no person may be punished for the same offence twice. According
to the petitioner, this provision ought to be followed when one
applies administrative responsibility for administrative
violations of law. Therefore the petitioner doubts if Article
1302 of the CAVL is in compliance with Paragraph 5 of Article
31 of the Constitution.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the court
proceedings, written explanations as regards the arguments of
the petitioner were received from the representative of the
party concerned P. Petkevičius.
The representative of the party concerned noted that the
peculiarity of the body of the violation of law provided for in
Article 1302 of the CAVL is that one commits the violations
pointed out in the disposition of the legal norm in the course
of one year and that every such a violation is assessed by a
certain number of points. The purpose of the calculation of the
points for the violations of administrative law as pointed out
in the law is to warn the drivers that instead of monetary
fines a stricter penalty-deprivation of the right to drive a
vehicle-will be applied for systematic violation of the Road
Traffic Rules. Article 1302 of the CAVL is applied properly if:
(1) violation of the Road Traffic Rules is systematic, i.e. not
less than three indicated violations have been committed; (2)
violations are assessed in points and their sum is bigger than
ten points; (3) the violations and their assessment in points
are pointed out in the protocol of the last violation and the
decision to impose a penalty; (4) fine is not imposed for the
last violation, while the driver is punished by one
administrative penalty under Article 1302 of the CAVL, i.e.
deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for one year.
According to the representative of the party concerned, if
Article 1302 of the CAVL is understood in this manner, it is in
compliance with Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the Constitution.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the court
proceedings, written explanations were received from V.
Markevičius, Minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic of
Lithuania, and H. Sadauskas, a senior commissioner of the
Public Police Road Patrols Service, the Police Department under
the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
V
At the court hearing, the representative of the party
concerned P. Petkevičius virtually reiterated the explanations
presented in writing.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On 18 July 1994, the Seimas passed the Law "On Amending
and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania Code of
Administrative Violations of Law". By Article 71 of the said
law the CAVL was supplemented with Article 1302 entitled
"Systematic Violation of the Road Traffic Rules by Vehicle
Drivers" which provides:
"For systematic violation of the Road Traffic Rules, i.e.
commission of several violations provided for in the second,
third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 124, the first,
third and fifth paragraphs of Article 1241 and Article 125 of
this Code in the course of one year, the sum of points given
for which is ten and more
the drivers shall be deprived of the right to drive a
vehicle for one year.
Note. In the course of the imposition of the
administrative penalty, the violation shall also be assessed in
points: for the violation provided for in the second paragraph
of Article 124 of this Code-one point, the third paragraph-four
points, the fourth paragraph-six points, the fifth
paragraph-eight points, the first paragraph of Article
1241-four points, the third paragraph-four points, the fifth
paragraph-eight points and Article 125-eight points."
The petitioner doubts whether Article 1302 of the CAVL
(wording of 18 July 1994) is in compliance with Paragraph 5 of
Article 31 of the Constitution.
2. On 17 February 2000, the Seimas adopted the Law "On
Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania Code of
Administrative Violations of Law" (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 2000, No. 22-552). By Article 165 of the said law
Article 1302 of the CAVL was amended and supplemented.
Subsequent to the petition of the petitioner, the
Constitutional Court will investigate if Article 1302 of the
CAVL (wording of 18 July 1994) is in compliance with Paragraph
5 of Article 31 of the Constitution.
3. Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the Constitution provides:
"No person may be punished for the same offence twice."
This provision of the Constitution, as well as the norms
of other paragraphs of Article 31 of the Constitution, is
designated for guaranteeing of the implementation of the
principles of justice in criminal proceedings (Constitutional
Court ruling of 10 February 2000).
Alongside, it needs to be noted that the provision of
Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the Constitution reflects the
principle non bis in idem: no person may be punished for the
same violation of law twice. The aforesaid principle does not
mean that for a violation of law different types of
responsibility may not be applied to a person at all and that
for an offence he may not be imposed the main and additional
punishment and that for an administrative violation of law he
may not be imposed the main and additional penalty.
4. The wording "for commission of several violations <...>
in the course of one year the sum of points given for which is
ten and more the drivers shall be deprived of the right to
drive a vehicle for one year" as employed in Article 1302 of
the CAVL (wording of 18 July 1994) might produce an impression
that it provides for an individual violation of administrative
law which is composed of the entirety of the violations of the
Road Traffic Rules committed in the course of one year.
However, while one construes the content of the legal treatment
established in the disputed article, it needs to be noted that
the wording "in the course of the imposition of the
administrative penalty, the violation shall also be assessed in
points" used in the note to the article means that the said
article does not provide for an individual violation of the
Road Traffic Rules: it provides for an additional sanction for
the last violation of the Road Traffic Rules in cases when the
person, in the course of one year, commits several violations
provided for in Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 124,
Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 1241 and Article 125 of the
CAVL the sum of points given for which is ten and more. For
every of these violations the person is punished according to
respective articles (paragraphs thereof) of the CAVL. For the
last of these violations the person is brought to
administrative responsibility according to a respective article
(paragraph thereof) of the CAVL, while under Article 1302 of
the CAVL a sanction is applied to him as well, i.e. he is
deprived of the right to drive a vehicle for one year.
5. The assessment of violations of the Road Traffic Rules
in points is not an administrative penalty. Under the legal
treatment established in the CAVL, the person who has committed
the last violation provided for in Article 1302 of the CAVL
(wording of 18 July 1994) is punished by the main
administrative penalty (fine) according to a respective article
(paragraph thereof) of the CAVL as well as by an additional
administrative penalty under Article 1302 of the CAVL. Thus the
legal treatment established in Article 1302 of the CAVL
(wording of 18 July 1994) does not mean that the person is
being punished for the same deed, i.e. the violation of law for
which he has been punished by an administrative penalty, twice.
If interpreted in such a manner, the legal treatment
established in the disputed article in the CAVL does not
violate the principle non bis in idem.
6. On the grounds of the arguments set forth one is to
conclude that Article 1302 of the CAVL (wording of 18 July
1994) is in compliance with Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the
Constitution.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed
the following
ruling:
To recognise that Article 1302 of the Republic of
Lithuania Code of Administrative Violations of Law (wording of
18 July 1994) is in compliance with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.