[ad_1]
If it weren’t for the Lithuanian Supreme Court, to which the prosecutor’s office complained, Darjušas J., a pensioner from the Ministry of the Interior living today in the Šalčininkai district, could be glad to have received an exceptional grace, for being drunk as required by law.
It is true that the former official was also prohibited from driving for two years, but he still ignored this prohibition: he was arrested at the wheel of a motorcycle immediately after receiving the exclusive pardon of the judges in a criminal case.
According to the case data, it was established that the police officers stopped the car driven by Darjušas J. in the Šalčininkai district, on the Babriškės – Varėna – Eišiškės road, on May 24 last year. at night, around 3.26 pm According to officials, the driver was drunk: during the first test, the breathalyzer showed 1.65 and, in the second, 1.57 per thousand of intoxication.
A retiree from the Ministry of the Interior was prosecuted for driving a luxury SUV while under the influence of alcohol. As he pleaded guilty in the criminal case to the Šalčininkai court and regretted the violation, the judges decided to exempt him from criminal responsibility on bail for a period of one year.
And instead of confiscating the car, as required by law, he decided to apply a more lenient measure: recover 4 thousand. EUR. According to the Šalčininkai judges, Darjušas J. committed the crime for the first time, the crime was not caused by damage and, taking into account the value of the car, there is no reason to apply a criminal sanction: full confiscation of property.
The court also noted that the acquitted man is a MIA retiree, does not work, and the confiscation of a high-value car would be a disproportionate and inappropriate measure of punishment: “It would have negative consequences on property significantly greater than criminal liability.”
But the Vilnius District Prosecutor’s Office did not agree with this position: the district court did not take into account the clear and determined will of the legislator to toughen liability for the most serious violations of the Traffic Rules by drunk drivers.
“The court has imposed a patrimonial measure that is not enough to guarantee preventive purposes and deter similar acts,” said the prosecution’s complaint that the criminal law imperatively required that a prohibited measure be confiscated in all cases.
“The confiscation of a car would not be in total contradiction with the principle of proportionality, it would comply with jurisprudence in order to achieve uniformity, consistency, consistency and ensure the correct application of the criminal law,” said prosecutors, two departments, etc. , as well as a motorcycle, so the confiscation of the BMW X6 will not violate the principles of fairness and proportionality.
The complaint also emphasized that the drunk driver had been released from responsibility, so the imposition of a criminal sanction, such as the confiscation of the car, would create impunity for the person and would not have a real impact on the person who committed the crime. .
“The circumstances that positively characterize a person or the reasons for acquittal do not lead to the conclusion that the confiscation of property is clearly too serious or disproportionate to the crime committed,” prosecutors said.
© Jurgis Paplaitis
Furthermore, according to prosecutors, driving while intoxicated Darjušas J. knew that criminal law imperatively prohibits driving while intoxicated, was aware of the dangerous nature of the crime, its possible consequences and wanted to do so, ignoring the public interest in ensuring a safe traffic. and public safety.
“Driving a car for a person intoxicated with alcohol represents a threat not only to road safety, but also to people’s lives, health and property,” according to prosecutors, although extremely serious consequences have been avoided, the seizure car ownership should not apply.
At the time, Darjus J. and his attorney were attempting to argue that the district court had thoroughly and comprehensively investigated and evaluated the circumstances of the case and rendered a legitimate and fair verdict when it concluded that the seizure of the car could not be considered. . a provided legal recourse.
According to him, 4 thousand were recovered. The amount of euros is a high enough punishment for reckless behavior and causes real difficulties.
The Vilnius Regional Court, which examined the appeal of the prosecutors, confirmed the pensioner of the Ministry of the Interior and confirmed the judgment of the Šalčininkai judges. But the prosecution did not give up and appealed to the Supreme Court of Lithuania, which decided to revoke the decisions, because they did not state the reasons why the situation of confiscation of property value.
After re-examining the case, the Vilnius Regional Court took into account the motives of the Court of Cassation and decided to modify the judgment of the Šalčininkai Court.
According to jurisprudence, driving a car while intoxicated represents a threat not only to traffic safety, but also to life, health and property of people, life and health of people are one of the values most important protected by the law enshrined in the Constitution, “said the panel chaired by Judge Aiva Survilienė. – The legislator, in the defense of these values, taking into account the dangerousness of the act, for driving a road vehicle or for the practical instruction of driving under the influence of alcohol when the offender’s blood is greater than 1.5 prom. alcohol, established criminal responsibility, establishing that for this offense the person can be punished with a fine or arrest, or with a prison sentence up to one year. Therefore, the legislator sought to increase road safety, to prevent TFE violations committed by drunk drivers, which represent a particularly large risk. ave for other road users ”.
© TEISMAI.LT
According to the court, asset forfeiture is a measure designed not only to punish the perpetrator, but also to make the criminal act itself financially unviable.
The panel of judges emphasized that the confiscation of property is not linked to the value of the property to be confiscated, so that a judicial decision on the confiscation of a criminal instrument cannot depend on its value.
“Darjušas J. is in a good financial situation, the latter has several real estate objects in his name, another vehicle, a motorcycle, which, incidentally, he drove without the right to drive vehicles after the conviction was appealed, for which was administratively sanctioned “. According to the Court of Justice, there is no reason to consider the confiscation of a car belonging to a driver as a disproportionate punitive measure that would clearly upset the balance between the objective of punishing the offender and ensuring the prevention of crime and the means chosen to achieve that. objective.
According to the court, in order to prevent the commission of similar crimes that are dangerous to society and to put the interests of the state and society above the interests of the perpetrator, the vehicle belonging to Darjuš J., the BMW X6, must be impounded. . in favor of the state.
It is strictly forbidden to use the information published by DELFI on other websites, in the media or elsewhere, or to distribute our material in any way without consent, and if consent has been obtained, it is necessary to indicate DELFI as the source.
[ad_2]
