U-I-295/05

The challenged provision of the first paragraph of Article 233 of the Road Traffic Safety Act does not require that a defendant incriminate himself or his relatives or those close to him, or admit that he is responsible for a minor offence. A defendant can defend himself by submitting evidence that he did not use a vehicle by which a minor offence was committed at the time when the minor offence was committed. Therefore, the regulation does not interfere with the defendant's right not to incriminate himself or his relatives or those close to him, or to admit guilt (Article 22 of the Constitution in conjunction with the fourth indent of Article 29 of the Constitution).

 

Due to the fact that the challenged regulation imposes on a defendant the obligation to prove that he is not a perpetrator of a minor offence, it interferes with the presumption of innocence (Article 27 of the Constitution). The legislature had a constitutionally admissible aim for such regulation. The presumption of the responsibility of an owner of a vehicle or a beneficiary of the right to use a vehicle ensures effective detection and sanctioning of perpetrators of minor offences in road traffic. Thereby it influences the conduct of drivers and contributes to the safety of pedestrians and road users. Such measure is necessary and appropriate for reaching the pursued aim. The condition of proportionality in a narrower sense is fulfilled. The restriction is proportionate to the value of the pursued aim as it may be used in cases of minor offences for which imprisonment cannot be imposed, whereby charges against the defendant are dismissed if he demonstrates with the appropriate degree of probability (which is a lower standard than demonstrating such facts with a high degree of certainty) that he is not the perpetrator of a minor offence. Therefore, the challenged regulation is not inconsistent with Article 27 of the Constitution.