The municipal (urban) guard may appear before a general court as a prosecutor in cases of punishment of the owner of the vehicle who refused to indicate the driver of the vehicle at the time of the traffic offence.
Supreme Court on 30 September 2014 by a resolution issued in the case of reference no. I KZP 16/14 Composition seven Judges stated that the municipal guard has the powers of a public prosecutor in cases of misconduct from Article 96(3) Act of 20 May 1971 Code of offence (Journal of Laws of 1971, item 114, Further: ‘k.w.’, i.e.
in cases relating to the failure of the owner of the vehicle to indicate the person to whom the vehicle is assigned to drive or use within the prescribed time.
It is significant that the resolution adopted has the power of the legal rule – its content is therefore of a binding nature and will undoubtedly contribute to the codification of the current divergent line of case law.
The Supreme Court has dispelled the fundamental interpretation doubts about the existence of the municipal guard's credentials to file applications for punishment from offences Article 96(3) k.w.
The differences in interpretation in this area were problematic enough to result in divergent case-law of the ordinary courts.
The most recent and binding ruling this time was also taken as a result of a different interpretation of the powers of the municipal guard by the Ombudsman, who acting on behalf of the accused Article 96(3) K.w., whose case became the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling -Marty R., after maintaining an adverse judgment for her by the District Court in Koszalin, filed a cassation with the Supreme Court.
The appeal resulted in the presentation of the issue to the enlarged Supreme Court, counting seven Judges.
The Supreme Court in the resolution in question based its ruling on the interpretation of the provision Article 17(3) Act of 24 August 2001 – Code of Conduct on Offences (J. Journal of Laws of 2013, item 395 as amended), as amended by the Act of 29 October 2010 amending the Act – Traffic Law and some other laws (Journal of Laws, item 1466).
The Supreme Court established the meaning of the term "range of operation" of the municipal guard based on the sound Article 17(3)) Code of Conduct on Offence Cases. In the resolution cited, the Supreme Court concluded that the scope of the action of the municipal guard was covered by investigations and that the request from the vehicle owner of information on the driving vehicle was an explanatory act.
The interpretation of the statutory delegation regarding the powers of the municipal guard will allow for a uniform way of dealing with photo-radars and doubts about the identity of the driver at the time of the offence, but at the same time it should be stressed that the Supreme Court's ruling clearly affects the interests of drivers.