By judgement of 13.12.2022. The Constitutional Tribunal concluded that Article 7(1)(2) of the Law of 20.3.2015 on the amendment of the Law – Criminal Code and certain another laws (Journal of Laws of 2015 item 541), understood that the basis for the decision referred to in Article 102(1) points 4 and 5 of the Law of 5.1.2011 on drivers of vehicles (Journal of Laws of 2021 item 1212, hereinafter referred to as: DirectPojU), is solely the information of the traffic control authority on the disclosure of the act described in Article 135(1) point 2 of the Act of 20.6.1997. – The traffic law (i.e. Dz.U. of 2022 item 988, hereinafter: PrDrog), is incompatible with Article 2 of the Constitution of Poland.
Application for non-compliance with the Constitution
The constitutional control of the above mentioned provisions was initiated by the motion of the First president of the ultimate Court. The application indicated that, in accordance with point (2) of Article 135(1) PrDrog, a police officer shall detain a national licence for receipt in the event of disclosure of an act consisting of:
- driving at a velocity exceeding 50 km/h in the built-up area, or
- the carriage of persons in numbers exceeding the number of seats specified in the registration certificate (time permit) or resulting from the plan intent of the vehicle not registered.
In the same cases, a police officer stops a licence issued by a State another than the Republic of Poland.
In accordance with Article 102(1)(4) and (5) of the Regulation, the politician shall issue a decision to hold the right each for a period of 3 months within 21 days of the date of receipt of the information, giving it immediate enforceability. The decision of the politician shall be appealed to the Board of Appeal and subsequently to the Provincial Administrative Court and to the Chief Administrative Court.
According to the literal wording of Article 7(1)(2) of the Act of 20.3.2015 amending the Law – Criminal Code and certain another laws (Journal of Laws of 2015 item 541), as well as the settled case law of administrative courts, the basis for the decision by the old man is the information of the road traffic control authority, which stated that the velocity or number of persons transported was exceeded.
The information of the road traffic control authority (e.g. the Police) has in fact served as a formalised and sole origin of cognition of the offence committed. The old man was not entitled to make his own findings, without meaning, e.g. the parallel infringement proceedings in which the driver questioned the performance of road traffic offences even completed by an acquittal judgment.
The applicant has identified Articles 2, 45(1) and 78 of the Constitution as control models. It was stressed that the driver of the vehicle has no anticipation of protecting his rights in both administrative and judicial proceedings. Administrative authorities and administrative courts remained independent, being de facto obliged to trust solely on the information of the road traffic control authority, even if the driver raised and provided evidence against the information (e.g. questioning overspeed, accuracy of measurement).
State
The position of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland requested the uncovering of non-compliance of the controlled provisions with Article 45(1), Article 78 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the principles of the loyalty of the State to citizens and of the procedural justice (reliability) expressed in Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
The Ombudsman besides argued that the contested provisions understood that the subject of the evidence procedure underlying the decision of the politician to hold a driving licence did not include verification of the correctness of the velocity measurement, as well as compliance with the rules and the efficiency of the equipment utilized to measurement the velocity at which the vehicle was moving, and that the anticipation to verify information on the number of persons transported at the time of the uncovering of infringements was not compatible with Article 2 of the Constitution of Poland in accordance with Article 45(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and Article 78 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland in accordance with Article 31(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
The lawyer General requested the designation that the rules were in line with the principles of citizens' trust in the State and their law, procedural justice, together with the prohibition of excessive interference by the legislator, led by Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, as well as with Article 78 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. In its argument, it was pointed out that the nonsubjective of the contested regulation is to guarantee road safety by eliminating dangerous drivers from traffic. According to established statistics, 4 out of 5 drivers exceed the velocity on national roads in built-up areas. The administrative sanction, which is temporary retention of a driving licence, was intended to effectively counter the danger on the road. This was supported by the work and immediate enforceability of the governor's decision to hold his driving licence. Among another things, those considerations raised by the lawyer General argue for the compatibility of the contested provisions with the Constitution.
Arguments of the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Tribunal agreed to the applicant's position on the non-compliance of the provisions examined with Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. To the remainder, the proceedings were dismissed.
On the grounds of his position, the CCC indicated that the old man, acting under Article 102(1) points and (4) and (5) of the CJEU, does not make any factual findings. It is bound by the information received from the road traffic control authority and without the anticipation of examining, whether on request or ex officio, the circumstances in this information provided.
The driver is deprived of any chance to defend his or her rations, effectively contested information, and the administrative decision is issued automatically.
Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland provides, among another things, a standard of fair and fair procedure, which must supply an explanation of the circumstances applicable to the resolution of the case. The organization to proceedings must have the right to be heard, to present his evidence, which shall consist of an nonsubjective examination of the case. Whether sanction has a criminal or administrative dimension, a comprehensive examination of the case is besides the right of the citizen and the work of the body and of the legislator, who is to form the procedural rules so as to comply with the standards of the democratic regulation of law.
The judgement can be referred to as a landmark, as it sets a fresh standard of administrative proceedings for the detention of a driving licence by an old man, pursuant to Article 102(1) points and (4) and (5) of the Driver's Office.
The judgement in question does not mean that road traffic control authorities are no longer entitled to hold a driving licence in the cases referred to in point (2) of Article 135(1) PrDrog. It means that an old man may make his own factual findings before issuing a decision pursuant to Article 102(1)(4) and (5) of the Guide, alternatively than relying solely on the information of the road traffic control authority. The driver shall have the right to submit his own evidence to show that the velocity or number of persons in the vehicle has not been exceeded.
The judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal may besides justify the resumption of administrative proceedings concluded by the politician of the decision to hold his driving licence.
![Mural na 15-lecie Mariackiej świeci. Zrobiła go Ania "Grube Linie" z Katowic [Zdjęcia]](https://www.wkatowicach.eu/assets/pics/aktualnosci/2025-07/DJI_20250712213202_0641_D_Du%C5%BCy.jpeg)
