In the draft law amending the Act, the Code of Conduct on Offences, dated 8 January 2021, an amendment has been made to the absence of the possibility of refusing to adopt the mandate.
The current arrangements allow the perpetrator to refuse to accept the mandate and in such a case the authority to which the officer has imposed the fine shall direct the application for punishment, in which case the application shall indicate the refusal to accept the mandate (or failure to pay the fine within the prescribed period) and, where possible, the reasons for the refusal. The case is then already examined by the competent court, which considers it on the basis of the provisions of the Code of Conduct on Offences.
However, this provision is not appropriate for the projecter. The draft amending law proposed that the perpetrator should no longer be able to refuse to accept the mandate, and that the amendment was justified by the need to relieve the courts of the burden of examining the offences.
Added section 8 to Article 98 a code of conduct in criminal matters shall state that: in the event of a refusal to accept a mandate or a refusal or the impossibility of receipt of a mandate by the convicted person, the officer shall draw up an appropriate reference on the mandate, the mandate shall be deemed to have been received.
If we do not agree with the mandate imposed on us, i.e. with its height or with the fact that it has been imposed, we will be forced within the time limit 7 the days from the date on which the fine was imposed with that penalty mandate, refer to the district court competent for the place where the offence was committed. Such appeal shall be brought directly to the court.
In the appeal, it is compulsory to indicate the mandate under appeal and to inform whether or not we challenge the mandate on guilt or punishment. Furthermore, the appeal should indicate all the evidence known to the applicant in support of his claims.
Another limitation which the projecter wants to introduce is a narrowing of the possibility of creating new evidence (i.e. other than those indicated in the appeal, unless they were not known at the time of the appeal). In addition, the court examining the case will be able to rule against the defendant.
The above provisions may constitute a restriction of the right to a court, since first the person who will be punished with a fine will not want to refer the case to court, fearing the tightening of the penalty, and second, the burden of proof does not rest on the part of the prosecution only on the part of the perpetrator of the offence, and he must, in his appeal, establish any evidence to demonstrate his innocence, with no possibility of citing them at a later stage.
After third Most people will not be able to handle an appeal in accordance with the requirements of the project promoter, and unfortunately such people will not be able to afford the help of a lawyer and will simply pay such a mandate.
Therefore, it cannot be agreed with the projector's argument that this is a positive change, as the burden on courts makes it at the expense of citizens.