Courts cannot review proportionality of temporary driving suspension imposed as complementary traffic sanction.
Romania (RO)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the governing board of the Constanța Court of Appeal and held that, in interpreting provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 195/2002 on public road traffic (Art. 96(1), (2)(b), Art. 100(3), Art. 101(3), Art. 102(3), Art. 109(9)) together with the contraventions regime under Government Ordinance No. 2/2001 (Art. 5(5), Art. 21(3), Art. 34(1)), a court seised of a contraventional complaint against a traffic citation imposing the complementary sanction of temporary suspension of the right to drive a vehicle, agricultural tractor or forestry tractor, or tramway may not review the proportionality of that complementary sanction. The decision is binding under Art. 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code; the earlier decisions in the cases triggering the referral remain overruled to the extent inconsistent with this interpretation.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedCourts cannot review proportionality of temporary driving suspension imposed as complementary traffic sanction: 195/2002 on public road traffic (Art. 96(1), (2)(b), Art. 100(3), Art. 101(3), Art. 102(3), Art. 109(9)) together with the contraventions regime under Government Ordinance No. 2/2001 (Art. 5(5), Art. 21(3), Art. 34(1)), a court seised of a contraventional complaint against a traffic citation imposing the complementary sanction of temporary suspension of the right to drive a vehicle, agricultural tractor or forestry tractor, or tramway may not review the proportionality of that complementary sanction. The decision is binding under Art. 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code; the earlier decisions in the cases triggering the referral remain overruled to the extent inconsistent with this interpretation.
Keywords
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedKey legal questions extracted by Legislator
AI generatedMain ground for the decision: interpretation of these provisions establishes that the court cannot examine the proportionality of the complementary sanction of temporary suspension of the driving license.
Corroborated with the main provisions to support the interpretation that the court has no power to review the proportionality of the complementary sanction.
Full text
R O M Â N I A
ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE
Completul competent să judece recursul în interesul legii
Minuta deciziei nr. 5 Dosar nr. 3373/1/2020
Şedinţa de la 12 aprilie 2021
ÎN NUMELE LEGII
D E C I D E :
Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de Colegiul de conducere al Curții de Apel Constanţa și, în consecință, stabilește că:
„În interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 96 alin. (1) şi alin. (2) lit. b), art. 100 alin. (3), art. 101 alin. (3), art. 102 alin. (3) şi art. 109 alin. (9) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 195/2002 privind circulaţia pe drumurile publice, republicată, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, coroborate cu prevederile art. 5 alin. (5), art. 21 alin. (3) şi art. 34 alin. (1) din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 2/2001 privind regimul juridic al contravenţiilor, aprobată cu modificări şi completări prin Legea nr. 180/2002, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, instanţa de judecată, învestită cu soluţionarea plângerii contravenţionale formulate împotriva unui proces-verbal de contravenţie, prin care s-a aplicat sancţiunea complementară a suspendării temporare a exercitării dreptului de a conduce un autovehicul, tractor agricol sau forestier ori tramvai, nu are posibilitatea să examineze proporţionalitatea acestei sancţiuni complementare”.
Obligatorie, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă.
Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi, 12 aprilie 2021.