9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
Courts continue to fine drivers and ignore evidence of their innocence. And this legal chaos, which is the most insulting, is also supported by the Supreme Court of
A complaint from Perm resident Sergei Kalinin about an unfair fine imposed using an automatic recording camera reached the highest court. At the end of 2020, he rented his LADA Vesta to another citizen, SV Krasnoborov.
About a month later – January 26, 2021 – the latter, while driving this car, violated traffic rules: he remained in a traffic jam at the intersection of Heroev Khasan and Chkalov streets in Perm when the traffic light turned red. The car was detected by an automatic recording camera the next day and the local traffic police imposed a fine on the vehicle’s owner under Part 1 of Art. 12.13 Code of administrative offenses for driving to a busy intersection – 1000 rubles.
Mr. Kalinin, after receiving this ‘congratulatory letter’, decided that he should not be responsible for the sins of his tenant and went to court. Kalinin initially presented a lot of evidence showing that at the time of the traffic violation the car was not in his possession, but in that of Krasnoborov: a lease agreement, a deed of transfer of the car, a receipt for receipt of money (rent payment) and an MTPL policy issued in Krasnoborov’s name. Moreover, the latter himself appeared at the meeting and confirmed that he, and not Mr Kalinin, was driving the car at the time of the offence.
The court studied the documents submitted, listened to the testimonies and ruled that all this does not rule out that the owner of the car can drive it during the rental period. Conclusion: refuse to withdraw the fine.
Kalinin continued the process of appealing against the unfair sentence from his point of view to higher courts. They all supported the Perm court’s conclusion and the case went to the Supreme Court. The latter expressed in his decision his clear dissatisfaction with the fact that Kalinin did not bother to appeal the fine to the Perm traffic police, but immediately went to court.
Theoretically, it can be assumed that the complainant expected the process to take longer than the two months provided by law for taking a decision on administrative violations. That is, when the district court “turned the tables” on the tenant Krasnoborov, no one had to pay a fine at all – due to the closure of the case “due to the statute of limitations.” But if you immediately contact the traffic police, such a trick would not work.
However, no one has been able to find actual evidence for the correctness of such assumptions. Despite this, the Supreme Court upheld the fine for the car owner, stating in its decision that “the documents submitted by the plaintiff do not constitute sufficient evidence irrefutably confirming that the vehicle was in the possession and use of another person at the time the administrative violation was committed. was recorded”!
So it turns out that every law-abiding motorist who for one reason or another received an erroneous fine from a traffic police camera should be held responsible for someone else’s violation, without the opportunity to appeal the penalty to the court. Any judge will now be able to act like the Supreme Court: there is a photo from the camera – that means you are guilty, and I don’t care about your arguments, car owner, not even breaking it into pieces!
A complaint from Perm resident Sergei Kalinin about an unfair fine imposed using an automatic recording camera reached the highest court. At the end of 2020, he rented his LADA Vesta to another citizen, SV Krasnoborov.
About a month later – January 26, 2021 – the latter, while driving this car, violated traffic rules: he remained in a traffic jam at the intersection of Heroev Khasan and Chkalov streets in Perm when the traffic light turned red. The car was detected by an automatic recording camera the next day and the local traffic police imposed a fine on the vehicle’s owner under Part 1 of Art. 12.13 Code of administrative offenses for driving to a busy intersection – 1000 rubles.
Mr. Kalinin, after receiving this ‘congratulatory letter’, decided that he should not be responsible for the sins of his tenant and went to court. Kalinin initially presented a lot of evidence showing that at the time of the traffic violation the car was not in his possession, but in that of Krasnoborov: a lease agreement, a deed of transfer of the car, a receipt for receipt of money (rent payment) and a MTPL policy issued in Krasnoborov’s name. Moreover, the latter himself appeared at the meeting and confirmed that he, and not Mr Kalinin, was driving the car at the time of the offence.
The court studied the documents submitted, listened to the testimonies and ruled that all this does not rule out that the owner of the car can drive it during the rental period. Conclusion: refuse to withdraw the fine.
Kalinin continued the process of appealing against the unfair sentence from his point of view to higher courts. They all supported the Perm court’s conclusion and the case went to the Supreme Court. The latter in his decision expressed clear dissatisfaction with the fact that Kalinin did not bother to appeal the fine to the Perm traffic police, but immediately went to court.
Theoretically, it can be assumed that the complainant expected the process to take longer than the two months provided by law for taking a decision on administrative violations. That is, when the district court “turned the tables” on the tenant Krasnoborov, no one had to pay a fine at all – due to the closure of the case “due to the statute of limitations.” But if you immediately contact the traffic police, such a trick would not work.
However, no one has been able to find actual evidence for the correctness of such assumptions. Despite this, the Supreme Court upheld the fine for the car owner, stating in its decision that “the documents submitted by the plaintiff do not constitute sufficient evidence irrefutably confirming that the vehicle was in the possession and use of another person at the time the administrative violation was committed. was recorded”!
So it turns out that every law-abiding motorist who for one reason or another received an erroneous fine from a traffic police camera should be held responsible for someone else’s violation, without the opportunity to appeal the penalty to the court. Any judge will now be able to act like the Supreme Court: there is a photo from the camera – that means you are guilty, and I don’t care about your arguments, car owner, not even breaking it into pieces!
Source: Avto Vzglyad
Donald Salinas is an experienced automobile journalist and writer for Div Bracket. He brings his readers the latest news and developments from the world of automobiles, offering a unique and knowledgeable perspective on the latest trends and innovations in the automotive industry.
