[ad_1]
Yevgeny confronted officials on October 6 last year when two investigators conducting a pretrial investigation visited his home with a search warrant.
The search was ineffective, officials at home did not find any prohibited items, but broke up with Yevgeny to offend.
“I asked them several times to sit on a chair and not on a table, but they ignored me and ignored me, so I was outraged by their behavior,” the man said in court, explaining why the police were called “roosters. Švenčionys “. .
Before the Court of First Instance, Yevgeny was even fined 110 euros for insulting the honor and dignity of officials.
They insulted each other, they punished each other
However, he appealed against this decision to the Panevėžys Regional Court, and Judge Donatas Jatužis looked at the situation completely differently.
What shocked the court the most was the fact that the fine was imposed on Yevgeny by the offended official himself, and this is strictly prohibited by law.
“As a victim, an official cannot participate in the investigation of the case and write a report of administrative misconduct, because he has an interest in the outcome of the case,” the court ruled.
While this circumstance alone is enough to end the misdemeanor administrative process, the judge saw further arguments to cancel the fine against Yevgeny.
Photo by Vilnius County Švenčionys / LSC Police Commissariat
During the search, officers did not make audio or video recordings, so it is unclear if the violation was actually committed.
“In principle, the testimony of the police officers alone is not sufficient to prove the unlawful conduct of a person who proves otherwise and does not allow to draw categorical conclusions about the mentioned guilt of Yevgeny G.
“The court may make a presumption based on the material presented in the case, unless Yevgeny G. has committed the violation specified in the record drawn up by the official, but the presumption cannot be based on a sentence that recognizes a person as committed administrative offense, “the court said.
Even so, the judge also appreciated the insult itself, which could have run into the police.
“Moreover, even taking into account the words mentioned in the administrative misconduct protocol -” Švenčionių gallos “, according to the court, those words, possibly directed at police officers, do not seek such a danger that can be considered an offense administrative, “says the ruling. – Jurisprudence has repeatedly indicated that police officers must work in complex, vague and emotionally stressful situations in accordance with the particularities of their work and are prepared for it, so that law enforcement officers must accept as an inescapable part of their professional activity and unfounded criticism. and unethical behavior and speeches. “
He expressed his outrage
The Panevėžys Regional Court examined another case in relation to the events of 2 October in Kupiškis.
That day, the city’s infamous eagle, Renatas, saw a familiar officer driving a company car and decided to express her thoughts to him.
The man followed the police car to the police station and approached the officer when he stopped.
“What are you chasing me brakes, you give me all the puff,” Renat said calmly at first.
The officer offered the man to contact his manager with all claims, and Renat responded that he complained directly to the Police Department.
“Go to Moscow though,” the official told him.
The spilled man had already turned and was walking towards his car when the police himself made comments against him.
Then Renatas turned around and, in an already raised tone, released the policeman when he was a small child.
“We pay you a salary with taxes,” the man shouted, complementing these words with a Russian expletive of the letter b.
“Half little boy, half priest,” Renatas continued enraged.
The officer must not be offended
After that collision, the official himself and his colleague drew up personnel reports from which the administrative procedures began.
Renatas was fined 110 euros in the Kupiškis court, but he appealed this decision and his arguments were heard in the Panevėžys Regional Court.
Judge Daina Vaidachavičienė, who was aware of the videos and the case, saw no reason to impose a fine.
Photo of the District Court of the City of Panevėžys / Daina Vaidachavičienė
“Renato S.’s tone of speech was elevated and rude in some places, which he himself admitted, but that tone of speech by itself cannot be considered an insult to an official, a negative assessment of his personality, a humiliation of honor and dignity.
On the other hand, the district court also notes that Officer RT himself unnecessarily delayed the discussion with the Applicant and encouraged the Applicant to further express his negative position, to make claims against the Officer, instructing the latter to address not only to his immediate superior but also to Moscow and in this way the official himself became part of the conflict and deepened that conflict without leaving it in time and ending it.
It is clear from the video that Renat S. begins the conversation very calmly at first and says that he will contact the department and after a few similar phrases he goes to his car, but his tone rises and he begins to express other affirmations in voice high and rude. only because the RT officer, instead of also withdrawing from this micro-conflict, continues the dialogue with the Plaintiff about the latter’s claims, and enters a new discussion with him about the allegations made by him.
Although Renato S.’s complaints against the official in RT were already raised in a high tone, the word gesture was used in a gesturing manner, but considering the legal practice already commented, such conduct cannot be considered insulting or degrading to honor and dignity . of the official resolution.
Photo by Julius Kalinskas / 15min / Tememė
Furthermore, according to the judge, the phrase “half child, half priest” is not very offensive.
‘Used by the appellant in relation to officer RT, the District Court rules that phrases like’ little boy ‘,’ half priest, half little boy ‘that are not in themselves offensive or degrading when repeated or said repeatedly cannot give rise to liability under ANK 508, as it is not part of the administrative misconduct described by the ANC and is completely inconsistent with the jurisprudence developed in such cases.
According to jurisprudence, people should be held administratively responsible only in clear cases of abusive, despicable and degrading communication with an official, when the interlocutor clearly understands that he is communicating with the official in this way and has the direct intention to disparage. and humiliate him, ”said the judge.
[ad_2]
