Offense against road safety

under the influence of alcohol . The sentence imposed a fine and the deprivation of the right to drive for 2 years. Upon appealing, the court ruled in his favor only partially, reducing both the fine and the license suspension to 1 year and 3 months.

The convicted individual appealed again , this time before the Supreme Court (SC). The SC did not accept the reason he tried to use to dispute the proven facts and how the evidence was obtained. Nor did it uphold his complaint about undue delays , as it depended on very specific date circumstances. However, it did analyze a point it deemed relevant; the convict requested that, during the enforcement phase, he be allowed to “fractionate” the license withdrawal , meaning to serve it in parts (for example, weekends, holidays, or other time "windows"). He argued that he was a professional driver and that losing his license continuously caused him economic and work-related harm.

The Prosecutor objected The withdrawal had to be carried out continuously for the time set in the sentence. The Supreme Court, in addition, noted that there were different criteria in Provincial Courts and established doctrine the deprivation of the right to drive is carried out continuously and cannot be done "à la carte" for work reasons.

 

In proceedings arising from facts related to the driving of motor vehicles, our lawyers are at your disposal to defend your interests