Decision No. 6 of 29 June 2023 in constitutional case No. 7/2023
Referring entity and subject matter of the case
The case has been initiated upon request of the Supreme Bar Council seeking to establish anti-constitutionality of the provision of Article 159, para 2 of the Traffic Law reading as follows, ‘No driving license or duplicate thereof shall be issued, and a withdrawn driving license shall not be returned as long as all due fines have been paid’. The applicant maintains that the rule of law principle rules out any limitations of fundamental constitutional rights aimed at compensating the inability of the state to compulsory collect the fines imposed. In the opinion of the applicant, the challenged provision limits the exercise of the right to free movement in the territory of the country as well as to leaving it.
Summary of the reasons
By way of the challenged provision the legislator limits the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right aiming thus to compel debtors to pay alternatively the fines imposed under the Traffic Law. This circumvents the statutory procedure for collection of fines. The fact that the state via its bodies cannot fulfill its duty to compulsory collect the imposed fines may not serve in any way as a ground for factually sanctioning citizens. Article 159, para 2 of the Traffic Law in essence lays down a limitation of the fundamental right of free movement within the territory of the country, which acquires the characteristics of a penalty for drivers for a non-existing administrative violation, something which runs contrary to the rule of law principle. The phrase ‘until the imposed fines have been paid in full’ is being used in the challenged provision, without specifying whether compulsory collection proceedings have been launched, or due fines are still subject to voluntary compliance, a situation which allows for a risk of administrative arbitrariness inadmissible for a rule of law state.
The legislator, by way of the challenged provision, circumvents the statutory procedure for enforcing public receivables for fines and thus limits the exercise of citizens’ right to free movement within the territory of the country or leaving its boundaries. The Constitution provides in Article 35, para 1, second sentence limitations to the right to free movement in cases when exercising it runs in a collision with expressly provided significant constitutionally endorsed public values. Exercising this fundamental right may be subject to limitations only if the limitation has been provided for in the law and is aimed at an adequate and proportionate protection of constitutionally endorsed values such as national security, public health or the rights and freedoms of others. The case at hand concerns no such value. The provision aims solely at an easier way for the compulsory collection of fines without effectively ensuring road safety. Yet this procedure is individually laid down and in case it is not sufficiently efficient, it should be improved by amendments to the respective legal act.
Grounds for the ruling and decision
Pursuant to Article 149, para 1, item 2 of the Constitution (power to rule on the constitutionality of laws), the Constitutional Court declares anti-constitutional the provision of Article 159, para 2 of the Traffic Law as contrary to Article 4, para 1 and Article 35, para 1, first sentence, second and third proposition of the Constitution.
Председател: Павлина Панова