Decision No. 9 of 6 June 2024 on Constitutional Case No. 5/2024
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request by the Ombudsman for establishing the unconstitutionality of Article 158, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Road Traffic Act, in the part “… provided that the driver has fulfilled his obligations under Article 190, paragraph 3, which is certified by the relevant payment documents” (Road Traffic Act, promulgated SG No. 20 of 05.03.1999, last amended SG No. 41 of 10.05.2024), due to its alleged inconsistency with Article 4, paragraph 1, Article 17, paragraphs 1-3, Article 35, paragraph 1, and Article 56 of the Constitution.
The request argues, as a principal ground for unconstitutionality, that the provision introduces an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the restoration of demerit points used to record violations committed by motor vehicle drivers. According to the request, this restriction effectively turns such drivers into lawbreakers and thereby impairs their ability to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is further maintained that the lack of precision in the text and the disproportionate nature of the restriction imposed on drivers’ rights violate the principle of the rule of law, and that treating the payment of fines as a refusal to appeal would also infringe the right to defence.
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
A distinction must be drawn between the situation under Article 158, paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and the loss of driving qualification due to the deduction of all demerit points (Article 157, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act). Under Article 158, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Road Traffic Act, individuals still retain their qualification to drive a motor vehicle and may adjust their behaviour in such a way as to avoid committing further violations.
A motor vehicle driver has the choice either to wait for the two-year period to expire and to refrain from violating road traffic rules so that the demerit points are fully restored ex officio, or to take an examination and submit an application. In both cases, the driver has not lost the right to operate a motor vehicle, nor is his ability to possess and use the vehicle restricted. If a person whose demerit points have been deducted considers that he needs further training, nothing prevents him from refreshing his knowledge of road traffic rules or engaging a registered instructor to address any gaps in that knowledge.
Non-fulfilment of the obligation under Article 190, paragraph 3 of the Road Traffic Act to pay the imposed fine does not restrict citizens’ ability to exercise their rights. On the contrary, compliance with that obligation is envisaged as an additional incentive, since in such a case the driver does not need to wait two years for the restoration of the demerit points.
The contested provision constitutes an additional opportunity for those drivers who decide whether to make use of it under the conditions established by law. It does not restrict the constitutional right of defence within the meaning of Article 56 of the Constitution, nor does it exert pressure on individuals to refrain from lodging an appeal.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution (the power to rule on requests for establishing the unconstitutionality of laws), the Constitutional Court rejects the request of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Bulgaria to establish the unconstitutionality of the provision of Article 158, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Road Traffic Act, in the part “provided that the driver has fulfilled his obligations under Article 190, paragraph 3, which is certified by the relevant payment documents” (promulgated in SG No. 20 of 05 March 1999, last amended SG No. 41 of 10 May 2024).
Председател: Павлина Панова