[ad_1]
Vilnius County Highway Police Board LSC in 2020 March 2 S. N. was administratively responsible for using a mobile device (without a hands-free device) while driving a car.
Therefore, S. N. violated Clause 20 of the Traffic Rules (hereinafter – KET) and committed an administrative offense provided for in Article 417 (3) of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter – ANK). A fine of € 75 was imposed on Mr N.
In disagreement with the ruling, S. N. appealed to the Vilnius City District Court.
The driver emphasized that he was using the phone when the car was parked and the engine was off, but this argument was not enough in court.
Vilnius City District Court 2020 June 1 S.N’s complaint was not satisfied and the decision of the Vilnius County LSC was confirmed. In disagreement with the ruling, S. N. filed an appeal with the Vilnius Regional Court. SN, who was brought to administrative liability in the lawsuit, asked to overturn the ruling of the Vilnius City District Court and to adopt a new ruling: overturn the ruling of the Vilnius County LSC and end the administrative offense proceedings in its against.
After examining the appeal arguments, the appealed ruling of the district court, and the submitted case of administrative misconduct, the Vilnius Regional Court found that the district court had made a reasoned and legal decision, therefore there are no grounds to overturn or change the decision of the Vilnius City District Court and satisfy the appeal.
S.N. it was dismissed by the court.
Valdas Kopūstas / 15min photo / Heavy traffic on Geležinio Vilko Street
There was no dispute in the case that S. N. in 2020. On January 17, he was using a mobile device while sitting in a car.
On appeal, Mr. N. disagreed with the alleged administrative misconduct against him, claiming that he was using his mobile phone while the car’s engine was off while stopped in a traffic jam. According to the appellant, in view of the situation in which the vehicle was stopped with the engine off, it was possible to use a mobile phone. The court did not agree with the appellant’s conclusions.
According to the Vilnius Regional Court, the appellant did not adequately assess the seriousness of his misconduct and attempted to justify it. Mr. N. stated that he had spoken on the phone, believing that the police officers sitting across from him in the car could warn him of the crime, but received no such warnings.
The court ruled that the mere fact that, in certain cases, police officers benevolently warn people of their irregularity does not in itself mean that people can verify their limits by taking illegal measures and expecting to be warned, but they will have no consequences. legal. .
From the court’s point of view, the driver with the phone in his hand becomes inattentive, unfocused.
For an administrative offense under Article 417 (3) of the ANC to be considered complete, any action unrelated to driving the vehicle and diverting the driver’s attention, such as holding a mobile device in his or her hands, is sufficient. According to the court, any phone conversation, even when stopped in a traffic jam, endangers traffic safety and can have detrimental consequences as the driver becomes inattentive and unfocused. And the simple fact that there are no certain consequences does not mitigate a person’s responsibility, the Vilnius Regional Court said in a statement released on Friday.
The court also noted that even if the engine of the S.N-driven vehicle was actually turned off in a traffic jam, such a situation still did not meet the ANK and KET conditions necessary to use the phone while in the car.
Article 417 (3) of the ANK and paragraph 20 of the KET establish that the use of a mobile phone is possible when the engine of a stationary vehicle is turned off, i. and. the vehicle must not only be turned off, but also parked, while the temporary stopping of the car during congestion, in the opinion of the Vilnius Regional Court, cannot be equated with parking, since such a vehicle is continuously involved in traffic.
According to the court, waiting in a traffic jam cannot be compared to standing, since such a vehicle is actually involved in traffic.
Point 9 of the KET stipulates that road users must take all necessary precautions, not endanger the safety and environment of other road users, other people or their property, obstruct their traffic and take all Measures necessary to prevent or reduce harmful effects, unless you endanger your own lives, the lives of others, or the health of others, or such measures would cause even more harm than could be avoided.
In view of this, according to the court, in order to stop the car and speak on the phone, the driver of the vehicle must do so in a place and in such a way that it does not obstruct traffic and pedestrian traffic, i. and. The vehicle must not be in traffic.
This decision of the Vilnius Regional Court is not subject to appeal.
[ad_2]
