Text file: 2124.txt
author: sasasega
downvotes: 2
end consideration date: 2011-11-10
id: '2124'
number comments: 6
number views: 3599
proposal type: Competent authority response
response: "Response from the Ministry of Justice\nArticle 53 of the Law on Misdemeanours\
  \ (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No 29/11 - official consolidated\
  \ text, hereinafter: ZP-1) regulates the imposition of a warning, i.e. an authorised\
  \ official of the misdemeanour authority may, instead of imposing a sanction, warn\
  \ the offender if the offence committed is of minor significance and if the authorised\
  \ official assesses that, in view of the significance of the offence, a warning\
  \ is a sufficient measure. The Ministry of Justice would point out that the imposition\
  \ of a warning under Article 53 of the Criminal Code is not one of the types of\
  \ sanction under Article 4 of the Criminal Code, but is a measure imposed in lieu\
  \ of a sanction and is optional in nature, and therefore it is not possible to identify\
  \ specific offences where the imposition of this measure would be mandatory. Article\
  \ 53(3) of the Law on the Prohibition of the Use of Criminal Offences also provides\
  \ for the possibility of keeping a record of warnings issued, it being added that\
  \ the processing of personal data is not permitted, but only the keeping of a record\
  \ of warnings issued for offences.\nArticle 21 of the Law on the Prohibition of\
  \ the Prohibition of the Prohibition of the Prohibition of the Prohibition of the\
  \ Use of Criminal Offences also provides for the possibility of issuing a cautionary\
  \ notice. A reprimand may also be issued if the offence consists in a failure to\
  \ comply with a prescribed obligation or in the damage caused by the offence, and\
  \ the offender has, before the decision or judgment on the offence is issued, complied\
  \ with the prescribed obligation or repaired or compensated for the damage caused.\
  \ That provision must be interpreted as meaning that the offence authority and the\
  \ court must determine on a case-by-case basis whether the conditions for issuing\
  \ a reprimand are met and must state the reasons for their decision to issue a reprimand\
  \ in the decision. On this basis, it is not possible to list the offences for which\
  \ a mandatory caution is to be issued in a taxic list. The Ministry of Justice would\
  \ point out that a reprimand is one of the types of sanction provided for in Article\
  \ 4 of the Law on Administrative Offences, and, pursuant to Article 4(3) of the\
  \ Law on Administrative Offences, it is imposed in lieu of a fine and is optional\
  \ in nature.\nOn the basis of the above, the Ministry of Justice considers that\
  \ the current legal regime of warnings and reprimands for offences is appropriate\
  \ in the light of the systemic law on offences and that the proposed amendments\
  \ are not necessary.  \n Response from the Ministry of the Interior\nThe fundamental\
  \ law which, inter alia, determines the sanctions, the general conditions for the\
  \ imposition and enforcement of sanctions and the procedure for offences is the\
  \ Offences Act (ZP-1). Among other things, Article 53 of the ZP-1 provides that,\
  \ instead of imposing a sanction, an authorised official of the offence authority\
  \ may give a warning to the offender if the offence committed is of minor importance\
  \ and if he/she considers that, in view of the importance of the offence, a warning\
  \ is a sufficient measure.\nHowever, the penalties for individual offences shall\
  \ be prescribed by the law in which the offence is prescribed\nPolice officers can\
  \ already issue warnings for certain offences under existing legislation. These\
  \ are offences for which the law does not prescribe penalty points in addition to\
  \ the fine. Penalty points are imposed for an offence against road safety which\
  \ creates a risk of serious consequences or which causes a serious consequence.\
  \ These are mainly offences which are the most frequent cause of, or factors influencing,\
  \ the occurrence of a traffic accident (speed, improper overtaking, alcohol, etc.).\
  \ Therefore, offences for which penalty points are prescribed cannot be treated\
  \ by the police as minor offences and warnings cannot be issued.\nBased on statistical\
  \ data, the police conclude that the most endangered categories of road users are\
  \ pedestrians, cyclists and drivers of single-track motor vehicles. These categories\
  \ account for about half of all road deaths on Slovenian roads. As pedestrians are\
  \ highlighted in the proposal, statistics on police action against pedestrians have\
  \ been collected. The period covers the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 (from 1.1.\
  \ to 1.11. in each year). It is found that in 2008, police officers detected 6,442\
  \ offences and issued warnings in 1,968 cases (31%). In 2009, they detected 7,560\
  \ offences and issued warnings for 2,070 offences (27%). Of the 7,213 offences detected,\
  \ officers issued 2,048 warnings (28%) in 2010 and 1,901 warnings (26%) of the 7,341\
  \ offences detected in 2011. This means that on average, officers issue warnings\
  \ to less than a third of pedestrians breaching road safety rules.\nAs existing\
  \ legislation already allows police officers to warn offenders for minor offences,\
  \ we do not consider it necessary to change the rules.    Response from the Ministry\
  \ of Transport\nBased on the suggestion received, which was forwarded to us via\
  \ the online tool predlagam.vladi.si, we have prepared the following response, in\
  \ addition to which we suggest that you seek further clarification from the Ministry\
  \ of Justice (responsible for clarification of the Offences Act) and the Ministry\
  \ of the Interior (whether police officers issue cautions) on their respective competences:\n\
  Article 1 of the Road Traffic Offences Act sets out the subject matter of the Act,\
  \ namely that it lays down the rules of the road and the powers and sanctions to\
  \ be imposed by the competent authorities in the implementation of the Act.\nThis\
  \ Article therefore sets out the content of the law, which determines the road traffic\
  \ rules, powers and sanctions to be imposed by the competent offence authorities\
  \ under the provisions of the ZP-1 in offence proceedings. The purpose and content\
  \ of the ZPrCP is therefore not to lay down the types of sanctions and to interfere\
  \ with the substance of the ZP-1 but to lay down the traffic rules.\nThe prescription\
  \ of offences and their penalties is the subject-matter of the ZP-1, as laid down\
  \ in Article 1 thereof: this Act lays down the general conditions for the prescription\
  \ of offences and their penalties, the general conditions for liability for offences,\
  \ for the imposition and enforcement of penalties for offences, the procedure for\
  \ offences, and the authorities and courts for the adjudication of offences.\nThe\
  \ purpose of the CPCPA is not to determine the type of sanctions for offences, but\
  \ only to determine the level of fines and penalty points in road traffic with the\
  \ termination of the validity of the driving licence and the prohibition of the\
  \ use of the driving licence for specific road traffic offences.\nArticle 4(1) of\
  \ the ZP-1 thus provides that the offence committed shall be punishable by the prescribed\
  \ sanction or warning under the conditions laid down in the ZP-1. However, pursuant\
  \ to Article 4(7) of the ZP-1, under the conditions and in the manner laid down\
  \ by law, a warning may be issued to the offender instead of the initiation of proceedings\
  \ for an offence or the issue of a decision on an offence.\nArticle 53 of the CP-1\
  \ lays down the conditions for issuing a warning: instead of imposing a sanction,\
  \ the authorised official of the offence authority may warn the offender if the\
  \ offence committed is of minor importance and if the authorised official considers\
  \ that, in view of the importance of the offence, a warning is a sufficient measure.\
  \ The authorised officer shall, at the same time as giving the warning, inform the\
  \ offender of the offence committed. The offending authority may keep a record of\
  \ the warnings issued, but may not process personal data in doing so."
response date: 2011-12-05
response due date: null
sent date: 2011-10-12
title: Warning for minor traffic offences
upvotes: 10
url: https://predlagam.vladi.si/predlog/2124
