Text file: 9378.txt
author: romascenko
downvotes: 7
end consideration date: 2018-09-03
id: '9378'
number comments: 10
number views: 1988
proposal type: Competent authority response
response: "Response from the Ministry of Infrastructure\nArticle 65(4)(7) of the Road\
  \ Traffic Rules Act (hereinafter: RTCA) provides that stopping and parking is prohibited\
  \ in a tunnel, gallery and underpass, as well as on a viaduct, bridge and overpass.\
  \ Article 65(6) of the ZPrCP also provides for a fine of EUR 80 for violation of\
  \ the provision prohibiting stopping and parking (in a tunnel, gallery and underpass,\
  \ and on a viaduct, bridge and overpass).\nWhen drafting the new traffic legislation,\
  \ much was written about the penalty policy, which was to be such that it would\
  \ largely not affect the financial situation of socially weaker offenders. The Law\
  \ on Misdemeanours (hereinafter: ZP-1), as the systemic law in the field of misdemeanour\
  \ law in the Republic of Slovenia, provides for the following institutes aimed at\
  \ socially vulnerable offenders (whether in summary or ordinary (court) proceedings):\n\
  \ instalment payment of the fine (Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Law on Criminal\
  \ Procedure), community service (Article 19a of the Law on Criminal Procedure),\
  \ substitute imprisonment (Article 20a of the Law on Criminal Procedure), or, to\
  \ some extent, half-payment of the fine (Article 57c of the Law on Criminal Procedure).\n\
  In view of the systemic regulation of the above-mentioned institutes, we believe\
  \ that the subject matter in question can in no way be the subject of a special\
  \ traffic law such as the ZPrCP. The payment of a fine according to the offender's\
  \ financial situation (e.g. according to the value of the vehicle, ....) could only\
  \ be regulated in the ZP-1, and the Ministry of Justice has not considered proposals\
  \ of this kind suitable for further consideration in the past (see response to proposal\
  \ 6564-92: Punishment of road traffic offences).\nAll offenders who, because of\
  \ their financial situation or their ability to pay, are unable to pay a fine and\
  \ the costs of the proceedings of at least EUR 300 (Article 19a(1) of the CP-1)\
  \ may propose to the competent court that the payment of the fine and the costs\
  \ of the proceedings be replaced by community service. It should be noted that the\
  \ court shall grant the substitution of the payment of the fine and the costs of\
  \ the proceedings by work for the general good to the applicant who would be entitled\
  \ to regular free legal aid according to the material criterion laid down in the\
  \ law regulating free legal aid (Article 19a(2) of the CP-1). In this way, the fine,\
  \ the payment of which is replaced by the performance of a task of general interest,\
  \ does not affect the offender or the persons he has to support. In summary proceedings,\
  \ the offending authority may impose a fine on the offender only in the amount of\
  \ the fine prescribed, but if the fine is prescribed in a range, it may impose only\
  \ the minimum fine prescribed, unless otherwise provided by law. In the case where\
  \ the offending authority issues a penalty payment order (Article 57 of the CP-1),\
  \ the authority may not take into account the circumstances which influence whether\
  \ the sanction should be lower or higher. The offence authority may impose a fine\
  \ higher than the minimum fine only if the law provides for this possibility, but\
  \ in this case it must issue a written decision on the offence (Article 56 ZP-1),\
  \ in which it must, in accordance with Article 26 ZP-1, state the reasons for the\
  \ mitigating or aggravating circumstances. In such cases, the offender has two options,\
  \ namely half payment of the fine imposed (if paid within eight days of the decision\
  \ becoming final) or payment in instalments of the fine imposed, which, pursuant\
  \ to Article 18(2) of the ZP-1, is authorised by the FURS. Notwithstanding the provisions\
  \ of this paragraph, it should be pointed out that, in accordance with the provisions\
  \ of the ZP-1, the offence authority has the option of imposing a reprimand (Article\
  \ 21 of the ZP-1) or a warning (Article 53 of the ZP-1), provided, of course, that\
  \ the conditions for the application of these two institutes are met.\nArticle 27\
  \ of the ZPrCP also stipulates that road users must comply with the traffic rules,\
  \ with the exception of:\n if otherwise specified by a traffic sign, if otherwise\
  \ ordered by a police officer or military police officer; if otherwise ordered by\
  \ a municipal police officer, inspector or other authorised official in accordance\
  \ with his powers.\nThe ZPrCP establishes the prohibition of stopping and parking\
  \ in a tunnel, gallery and underpass, and on a viaduct, bridge and overpass as a\
  \ traffic rule, and road users must therefore comply with the traffic rule. In such\
  \ a case, an explicit order expressed by an individual prohibition and restriction\
  \ sign (2200) is not necessary.\nSince the punishment of drivers who stop and park\
  \ in tunnels, galleries and underpasses, as well as on viaducts, bridges and overpasses,\
  \ is regulated in the ZPrCP, the Ministry of Infrastructure does not support the\
  \ petitioner's proposal.\n "
response date: 2018-10-08
response due date: null
sent date: 2018-08-13
title: Penalty for stopping under overpasses in bad weather (hail, etc.)
upvotes: 16
url: https://predlagam.vladi.si/predlog/9378
