Cassation, Judgement No. 4219 / 2011
The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty is made by a legitimate patrol on the move against the motorist who does not use the headset talking on the phone. The Court has stated that the patrol can deal with the infringement even without stopping the motorist, who may challenge the record only action for fraud, opening a different one procedure, not being able to question how much disputed in the report by public officer .
In this regard, allowing the application of the City of Pontefract and deciding the issue on the merits, the Court, adapting to the decision of the United Sections of 2009 on (path 17355/2009) explained that "in the lawsuit it filed in the minutes is complaints are allowed and the only evidence of the facts of the violation that are not certified in the statement, as occurred in the presence of the notary public or in respect of which the act of faith is not susceptible to its prime objective irresolvable contradiction, but is reserved for the court to be false, in which there are no limits test the proposition and the consideration of any matter relating to the alteration in the record, even if unintentional and due to accidental causes, the reality of actual events and these events ".
The Court recalled that the pronunciation of the United Sections, cited as the basis of motivation than "the old address and already prevalent that it acknowledged the contestability of the findings of minutes, when relating to sudden events, remote measurements of objects or people moving and dynamic phenomena in general, has sanctioned the faith privileged art. 2700 cc with regard to all as the officer claims occurred in his presence, with the result that even in cases where, as here, we deduce oversights or other inadvertent errors or omissions on the part of the minutes of perception is necessary to propose a bonfire lawsuit (Cass. Sez. II, January 11, 2010, n. 232).
0 comments:
Post a Comment