So, the second court of cassation tried the case of a certain driver who was caught a second time on suspicion of drunk driving. He refused a medical examination. Therefore, we cannot say that he was drunk. But for refusing such a test, he faces exactly the same punishment as if intoxication had been established.
At the same time, for repeatedly driving while intoxicated or for refusing to undergo a medical examination, the driver faces a criminal article, which includes, among other things, the confiscation of the car from the owner.
Faced with this situation, the owner of the car cooperated with the investigation and admitted his guilt. And the court of first instance sentenced him under part 1 of article 264.1 of the Criminal Code to a penalty in the form of forced labor for a period of 200 hours with deprivation of the right to drive for a period of 2 years and 6 months. And the court ruled to confiscate the car.
According to the Supreme Court Judicial Department, nearly 12,000 people were prosecuted for drunk driving last year.
The driver did not agree with this decision. He complained about it. According to the documents presented by him to the Court of Appeal, the car did not belong to him at the time of bringing it to court. He sold it to his daughter under a sales contract.
In fact, according to the Criminal Code, a car can only be confiscated from its owner. But there was some confusion in this case. The protocol, signed by the driver, indicates that he is the owner of the car. This is confirmed by both his words and the documents of the car.
In the trial court, he did not claim that the car did not belong to him. This passage appeared only in the complaint before the court of appeal. Therefore, the appeal to such a statement was skeptical.
The Court of Cassation, having analyzed the case, directly noted that the contract concluded between the convicted person and his daughter did not imply the transfer of ownership of the car to the latter. It was established that it was the convicted person who continued to use the car after signing the purchase contract. As for her daughter, she did not actually exercise any right to ownership or use of this car.
Therefore, the Court of Cassation confirmed the decisions of the lower instances.
It is worth remembering that the confiscation of a car from the owner is enshrined in the legislation not so long ago. And first of all, this applies to those who got behind the wheel for the second time in a drunken state or refused a medical examination.
According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, almost 12,000 people were involved under this article last year. It is unknown how many of them were left without a car. These data do not appear in the statistics.
At the same time, other malicious offenders may also be left without a car. The relevant modifications entered into force in July of last year.
According to them, criminal liability is provided for driving into the opposite lane or speeding by more than 60 or 80 km/h by a driver deprived of the right to drive. Unless, of course, such a violation is completely repeated.
For example, the driver ran a red light once. For the second of those tickets, an inspector stopped him and the driver lost his license. If you go through a red light for the third time, you will be penalized under a new article of the Administrative Offenses Code: for committing an administrative offence, being deprived of your rights. And when you again make a trip into the oncoming lane or run a red light, you’ll receive a criminal item. And according to this article, the court will deprive him not only of his rights, but also of his car. If you are the owner. And he will also name compulsory or corrective labor and, possibly, a colony.
Although the statistics on such cases are quite modest. If almost 12 thousand drivers were involved in repeated drunk driving, then for all other repeat offenses – only 37 people.
It’s understandable. It is very difficult to violate so many times in a row, as well as being deprived of rights. But there are also such controllers.
As for the daughter of the driver who was deprived of the car, the court of cassation recalled that she has every right to sue her father if her property rights have been violated.
