Vilnius was punished for a civic initiative: he wanted to warn KET violators

The red “Notice of Infringement” leaflets left by the man behind the windshield wipers of the car parked in an unauthorized place were very similar to those left by employees of the Vilnius municipal company “Sazimo paslaugos”, so some drivers After finding such reports, they turned to the Vilnius municipality. administration.

Municipal officials who started the investigation set at least four days when no legal notice was left behind the windshield wipers; It soon became known that these notes were left by Eduardas Krikščiūnas from Vilnius. He is a former assistant to the mayor of Vilnius Artūras Zuokas, an active representative of the Antakalnis community.

Not everyone liked the initiative of E. Krikščiūnas, so the representatives of the Administrative Cases Division of the municipal administration, who started the investigation on the Management and Cleaning Rules approved by the Vilnius City Council , launched a case of administrative misconduct against Vilnius residents and issued a warning for violations. This is the most lenient penalty provided by law.

E. Krikščiūnas, who was punished for his civic initiative, did not agree to that punishment, but after examining his complaints, the judges of the Vilnius city district and regional courts stated that he had been reasonably prosecuted by municipal officials and they had imposed the lighter penalty provided for in the sanction.

“The administrative sanction imposed by the institution’s resolution is considered proportionate and fair,” said Arūnas Budrys, president of the Criminal Chamber of the Vilnius Regional Court, in the final and unappealable sentence.

According to the data in the case, it was established that E. Krikščiūnas was still there on March 20, April 26, May 8 and May 30. Red “Notice of Violation” brochures pasted in unexpected places behind the vehicle’s windshield wipers. Yes, according to the court, he violated the Handling and Cleaning Rules.

At that time, E. Krikščiūnas assured that seeing that the complaints of infractions or non-payments for parking in paid places were left by the employees of the municipal company “Piekimo paslaugos”, he thought that it is a normal practice and the fastest way to ensure the compliance and that does not contradict rules and its objectives.

According to E. Krikščiūnas, public statements by police community officials also assumed that leaving such reports behind wipes is a viable way to combat rape: an active member of the Antakalnis community submitted an online post to the court, in the one that Vilnius Police Chief Investigator Andžejus Radevičius suggested, and only then call the police if it fails.

“Sometimes the car owner doesn’t know that his vehicle is cloudy, so in such cases we suggest leaving the notes attached to the windshield wipers first,” said A. Radevičius. – Don’t settle for just informing him that the car has blocked the hallway, a mask alarm all night, and include the community president, representative or your personal contact for feedback. If you see that the driver is showing malice, leaving the car and then going anywhere, ignoring the warnings, you will definitely have to contact the police. We do not necessarily press immediately to punish. We will call for an interview first, we will send a warning, only if the violations do not stop, then we will impose sanctions. “

E. Krikščiūnas noted that “he considered these words spoken by the police officer as an official call to leave messages in order to achieve the greatest possible effect and not unnecessarily delay the officers.”

The Vilnius resident, who was warned about the administrative infraction, also stressed that he did not know it was still on May 6. The Handling and Cleaning Rules were modified to establish that it is also forbidden to leave the brochures in the vehicles. He was also outraged that no attempt had even been made to find out the motives for his actions.

“After all, I was only trying to inform offenders about the violations of the law they are committing and, in principle, such an action cannot be considered illegal,” said E. Krikščiūnas.

But such a position from a Vilnius citizen did not convince the judges; According to them, the ban on leaving notes behind the windshield wipers of vehicles or other places came into force in 2017. in the Handling and Cleaning Rules approved in May.

“Obviously, vehicle windshield wipers are not a place to approve advertisements,” the court noted.

According to the court, the red leaflet in the case with the inscription “Violation Report” left by E. Krikščiūnas behind the vehicle’s windshield wipers shows that this report informs drivers about the KET violation, which is recorded in the photos, indicates the penalty imposed. for an administrative offense, as well as the procedure for preparing a report on an administrative offense.

“MI. The red leaflets used by Krikščiūnas with the inscription” Notice of infringement “correspond to the definition of the notice provided for in the Rules of Management and Cleanliness, since said leaflet informs of the infringement, provides specific information that is not related to the commercial, financial or professional activities of the person, goods or services, ”the court said.

The non-appealable judgment also establishes that E. Krikščiūnas is not a “Transportation Service” or any other institution, company, institution or state or municipal organization that is authorized to approve advertisements without prejudice and in places not designated for that purpose to fulfill legal requirements. , inform the public, identify owners (legal administrators), employee.

“Furthermore, as he himself stated, he left personal messages as a citizen and not in the performance of any job function, which means that E. Krikščiūnas had to make sure that he was allowed to do so before posting such messages on other people’s vehicles. “. – Judge A. Budrys.

According to him, the mere fact that “E. Krikščiūnas may not have been interested in him beforehand, he relied on someone’s practice, articles on the Internet, he did not know where to turn for official inquiries or he thought that his actions did not contradict the Rules of Management and Cleanliness, they do not grant him the right to violate them and release you from administrative responsibility.

“Ignorance of the laws or other legal acts does not exempt from administrative responsibility,” the court emphasized.