Grounds for order

Description of the facts

District Court of L. by order of 22.9.2023, VI K 1031/23, The President The accused of driving all motor vehicles resulting from a category B driving licence, i.e. an act under Article 180a of the KK, found guilty of committing an alleged act fulfilling the disposition of Article 180a of the KK, and for this, on the basis of Article 180a of the KK, in accordance with Article 34(1) and § 1a(1) of the KK, in accordance with Article 35(1) of the KK, imposed a limitation of 10 months of freedom on the defendant, by the work to execute unpaid, controlled work for social purposes of 30 hours in relation to the month. Furthermore, the court, pursuant to Article 42(1a)(1) of the CCC, ruled against the suspect a criminal measurement in the form of a prohibition against the pursuit of all motor vehicles for a period of 2 years and ordered the suspect to bear the costs of the proceedings.

The judgement was finalized on 26.10.2023 in the absence of opposition from the parties.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has brought an annulment against the judgement of the territory Court in favour of the accused lawyer General, who has accused the judgement under appeal of gross and materially affecting the content of the judgement of a breach of the criminal law of a procedural nature, namely Article 500(1) and (3) of the NCP, by issuing to the The President the judgement in the order procedure, even though the circumstances of the conduct of the accused individual described in the indictment of Article 180a KK and its fault, in the light of the full evidence collected, raised doubts as to the fact that the defendant's conduct only fulfilled the marks of the offence under Article 94(1) KW. On the date of the action, i.e. 6.4.2023, the suspect was no longer subject to the administrative decision of the president of the City of Łódź of 22.11.2016 to revoke the right to drive vehicles, since it was issued, inter alia, on the basis of Article 182 of the KKW and Article 103(1) of the Law of 5.1.2011 on driving vehicles (i.e. OJ of 2024, item 1210, as amended), in connection with the judgement of the territory Court of Ł., VI K 1023/16, a 4-year ban on driving any motor vehicles which ended 12.7.2020. Consequently, the decision in question could not effectively extend the duration of the criminal measure, nor could it constitute a permanent withdrawal of driving rights.

The applicant requested that the judgement under appeal be repealed and that the case be referred to the territory Court in L.A. for review.

The ultimate Court, after examining the cassation brought by the lawyer General in favour, overturned the contested judgement and referred the case to the territory Court in Łódź for re-examination.

Reasons for SN

According to the ultimate Court, the cassation is of course justified and was so subject to examination and inclusion at a sitting without the participation of the parties, in accordance with Article 535(5) of the NCP. The plea contained in the cassation of the lawyer General of a gross violation by the territory Court of Łódź of the procedural law, namely Articles 500(1) and (3) of the NCP, should be full divided.

It should have been pointed out very clearly that the case in question should not be dealt with by order due to the fact that it was not apparent that the suspect had committed the alleged offence under Article 180a of the KK. From the content of the charge against the accused The President It follows that he was driving on a public road during the period of validity of the decision to revoke driving rights, but the content of that plea does not show how long the decision was in force.

As the applicant rightly pointed out in the cassation, there were no grounds for order in the present case. According to Article 500(1) and (3) of the NCPs, the anticipation of issuing a judgement is possible if the evidence collected in the case makes it possible to conclude that the facts of the action and of the defendant's guilt are not in doubt. In order for a court to give a judgement under a prescriptive procedure, it is necessary, on the basis of the evidence collected in the investigation, to get adequate assurance as to the circumstances of the offence and the defendant's fault. Otherwise, it is essential to examine the case at the hearing. The reason for the deficiency of uncertainty set out in Article 500(3) of the NCP includes not only the uncovering of the act, but all the circumstances affecting its appropriate legal assessment, including as fundamental as the execution by the accused of all the elements of the alleged offence mentioned in a circumstantial provision typifying the offence in question. This means that it is the work of the court to get all the data to enable it to be established that there is no specified uncertainty in the case (see judgement of the ultimate Court of 20.6.2024, I K K 173/24, Legalis; judgement of the ultimate Court of 7.2.2024, V K K 524/23, Legalis; judgement of the ultimate Court of 13.9.2023, II K K 221/23, Legalis; judgement of the ultimate Court of 3.8.2023, V K K 56/23, Legalis; judgement of the ultimate Court of 20.10.2022, I K K 295/22, Legalis).

In the circumstances of the case in question, by issuing a conviction order, the court meriti As a result, he grossly violated the substantive criminal law. The President he was accused of driving the F. brand car in L.A. on 6.4.2023, without complying with the decision issued by the City president of L.A. to revoke the right to drive any motor vehicle resulting from a category B driving licence, i.e. to act under Article 180a KK. The condition of criminal liability for this act is not simply the conduct of driving a vehicle without being entitled (it is penalised by Article 94(1) KW), but it must be linked to failure to comply with a previously and enforceable administrative decision by the competent authority to revoke the power to drive a mechanical vehicle. It is so undisputed that an offence under Article 180a KK can only be committed by a individual to whom a circumstantial administrative decision has been taken and only during the period for which the power to drive motor vehicles has been revoked (see judgement of the ultimate Court of 28.3.2024, III KK 444/23, Legalis).

It should have been noted that the decision to revoke the right to drive cat. B to The President was issued by the City president on 22.11.2016, in connection with the judgement of the territory Court in Łódź, VI K 1023/16, a 4-year ban on driving any motor vehicles. This deadline began on 13.7.2016 and ended on 12.7.2020. The administrative body, acting on the basis of Article 182(2) of the CCC, shall be closely bound by the content of the prohibition and shall not be able to extend or restrict any prohibition imposed by the court. It may so revoke the power to drive motor vehicles only for the time specified in the judgment, and the withdrawal of powers may only apply to the scope indicated by the court (see judgement of the ultimate Court of 6.10.2021, IV KK 344/21, Legalis).

The territory Court of L. did not verify the content of that administrative decision for its validity on the date of the act by The President, assuming for the prosecution that the defendant, driving the vehicle on 6.4.2023, was obliged to comply with the decision of the president of the City of Ł. to revoke the power to drive any motor vehicle cat. B, despite the fact that this decision has already lost its power. This was clearly led by the court meriti to make misdeeds of fact, which straight affected the legal qualification of the accused individual and the punishment imposed on him.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it became essential to repeal the judgement under appeal and mention the case to the territory Court in L.C., which, in the re-examination of the case, will have respect to the position presented above, including the request to consider the characterisation of the alleged offence as set out in 94(1) KW.

Comment