[ad_1]
In an administrative infraction case, a complaint was made for a woman for driving a vehicle while intoxicated, driving in the opposite lane and colliding with a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. The Court of First Instance examined the case by written procedure and imposed a fine and a special penalty of three years of disqualification from driving on the woman.
On appeal, the woman requested the annulment of the lower court’s decision and a new trial, arguing that the court had not clarified all the circumstances, as she was not at fault for the accident, although she did not deny the fact that she had been driving while intoxicated.
According to the driver, the court, who was working in writing, did not find out all the circumstances: that she was not to blame for the traffic accident, although it does not dispute the fact that she was driving while intoxicated.
The complaint alleges that the court of first instance did not follow the recommendations of the Council of Judges regarding the examination of the cases during the quarantine and unreasonably examined the case by written procedure without their participation.
The district court that heard the case upheld the administrative driver’s appeal and referred the case to the trial court, noting once again that the trial court had unjustifiably dismissed the request for postponement and had heard the case in writing without listening. to the offender.
The district court did not follow the recommendations of the Judicial Council on the organization of judicial work, which recommend ensuring the continuity of court activities through distance communication and, if necessary, safe physical procedures, since the woman and her representative they were not offered to suspend the session. remotely using video conferencing applications (such as Zoom).
The order will take effect on the day of its publication.
[ad_2]
