Area: Promet
Competent authority: MzI
EZU URL: .nan
Initiative ID: 657
Initiative accepted and completed: '2015-10-21'
Initiative classified in EZU: .nan
Initiative forwarded in response: '2015-09-16'
Initiative published: '2015-09-16'
Initiative submitted: '2015-09-07'
Response from the competent authority: "Response of the Ministry of Justice:The Ministry\
  \ of Justice starts by explaining in general terms that the Act on Misdemeanours\
  \ (hereinafter: ZP-1) already provides for the assessment of fines according to\
  \ the financial situation of the offender, namely, the financial situation is taken\
  \ into account:1.    Article 26 of the ZP-1 lays down the general rules for the\
  \ assessment of the sanction, which is to be assessed within the limits laid down\
  \ by law for the offence committed, taking into account the gravity of the offence\
  \ and the offender's negligence or wilfulness; in doing so, account is to be taken\
  \ of all the circumstances (both mitigating and aggravating) which influence whether\
  \ the sanction should be less or more. The third paragraph of that Article provides,\
  \ inter alia, that, in assessing the fine, account shall be taken of the offender's\
  \ financial situation, the amount of his or her salary, his or her other income,\
  \ his or her assets and his or her family obligations. 2.    In summary proceedings\
  \ for an offence, if the offence authority issues a decision on the offence (Art.56\
  \ ZP-1), and if the substantive law, i.e. the law defining the elements of the offence,\
  \ contains a power to impose a fine higher than the minimum fine prescribed, but\
  \ within the range (Art.52(3) ZP-1).  Therefore, the financial situation of the\
  \ offender cannot be taken into account only in cases where the fine is set at a\
  \ certain amount (e.g. in municipal ordinances) and in cases where the law does\
  \ not provide for the power to impose a fine higher than the minimum fine.The Ministry\
  \ of Justice goes on to set out the reasons why a fine cannot be imposed in certain\
  \ cases, taking into account the financial situation of the offender:- the offence\
  \ authorities should have direct (electronic) access to official records containing\
  \ information on the offender's financial situation or to the regularly updated\
  \ EUROTAX catalogue with the prices of the vehicles, which is currently not possible\
  \ due to technical possibilities, or it would be necessary to provide a list of\
  \ the vehicles with an estimated value, which is likely to be linked to the high\
  \ costs of establishing and updating the list of vehicles;- many offenders hide\
  \ their assets by having them registered in the name of another family member or\
  \ relative, which also raises the question of the authenticity of the information\
  \ contained in the official records, not forgetting the fact that the driver of\
  \ the vehicle is not necessarily the owner of the vehicle;- in the substantive rules\
  \ on offences, all the provisions on fines should be amended to provide for a range,\
  \ since some provisions set fines at a certain amount, and it should also be noted\
  \ that municipalities may only impose fines at a certain amount (eighth paragraph,\
  \ 17.4.2008, p. 1). Moreover, the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter:\
  \ the Constitution) provides in Article 14(1) that everyone in Slovenia is guaranteed\
  \ equal human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of ethnic origin, race,\
  \ sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, property, birth, education,\
  \ social status, disability or any other personal circumstance. Article 14(2) of\
  \ the Constitution provides that all persons shall be equal before the law. This\
  \ means that all applicable legal provisions must be applied in the same way to\
  \ all persons to whom they apply. It also means that the norm must be drafted in\
  \ such a way that it treats the same cases in the same way.The specific case of\
  \ an infringement of Article 99(1)(1) of the Road Traffic Rules Act (hereinafter:\
  \ RTCA) - driving through a red traffic light - constitutes an offence under the\
  \ current legislation, for which the driver is liable to a fine of EUR 250 and to\
  \ three penalty points under Article 99(10) of the RTCA.The offence is punishable\
  \ by a fine of EUR 250 and by a penalty of three demerit points. Assuming that the\
  \ offender could be fined according to the value of the vehicle, in the specific\
  \ case of running a red light, the driver would be fined e.g. 10% of the value of\
  \ the vehicle with which the offence was committed. A person committing such an\
  \ offence with a vehicle worth \u20AC500 would be fined \u20AC50, while a driver\
  \ committing the offence in question with a vehicle worth \u20AC50,000 in the same\
  \ circumstances of place and time would be fined \u20AC500. In the light of the\
  \ above, it would be very difficult or impossible to defend, from the point of view\
  \ of the principle of equality before the law (Article 14 of the Constitution),\
  \ a different sanction for an offence which is equally dangerous for (all) road\
  \ users, and it would be equally difficult or impossible to defend such a sanction\
  \ from the point of view of the principle of proportionality (2. Article 15(3) of\
  \ the Constitution), since at present the level of the fine is \"linked\" to the\
  \ risk arising from the infringement of the (road) traffic rules and the value of\
  \ the vehicle in which the offence was committed has no valid link to the risk of\
  \ the infringement.An additional reason against the imposition of a fine based on\
  \ the financial situation of the offender is that the order for payment is intended\
  \ to sanction offenders 'on the spot', and therefore fines for offences which are\
  \ detected in person or by technical means or devices by authorised officials of\
  \ the offending authority should be set at the appropriate amounts in the rules\
  \ governing offences (taking into account the different socio-economic situation\
  \ of the offenders). The procedure for issuing a payment order is intended to be\
  \ swift, and the offender is therefore allowed to pay half of the fine within eight\
  \ days of the payment order becoming final (Article 57c(1) of the Law on Administrative\
  \ Offences). The possibility of paying half of the fine is one of the possible ways\
  \ of taking into account the fact that some offenders have different incomes. However,\
  \ pursuant to Article 18(2) of the CP-1, the offender has the option of paying the\
  \ fine and any costs of the proceedings also by instalments, and this right is expressly\
  \ indicated in the legal notice of the order for payment or the written decision.On\
  \ the basis of the foregoing, the Ministry of Justice considers that the implementation\
  \ of the imposition of fines, which in the case of traffic offences would be assessed\
  \ on the basis of the value of the vehicle used to commit the offence (or economic\
  \ and social criteria), in the offence proceedings is questionable, both from the\
  \ point of view of the efficiency and speed of the proceedings and from the point\
  \ of view of their constitutionality, although the proposed solution may seem justified\
  \ or fair at first sight."
Text file: 657.txt
Title: Reaction to the proposed amendment to the law introducing the possibility of
  paying 1/3 of the fine for a traffic offence
URL: https://www.stopbirokraciji.gov.si/pobuda/?st=657
