2024-01-30 09:21:10
GETTY IMAGES
Drivers fined by the General Directorate of Traffic (DGT) have a voluntary period of up to 20 calendar days from receipt of the notification to pay or appeal if they are not satisfied with the sanction, but the offender can also lose the points on their license. If it is concluded that the sanctioned person cannot drive, he will have to hand in his permit at any Traffic headquarters or office.
The person fined with the withdrawal of the license must complete a period of six months without driving, three months if he is a professional. After this period, you will have to take and pass a road awareness and re-education course to subsequently undergo a theoretical exam in Traffic on the subject of the course taken and, once approved, request a new permit with an updated balance of eight points.
On many occasions the sanctioned driver tries to avoid the loss of points by identifying another driver of the vehicle. On several second-hand buying and selling websites you can find advertisements of individuals selling their driving license points offering up to 250 euros for each one.
The fraudulent accreditation of the driver has reached the Supreme Court (access its content here) and has ended with the conviction of the owner of the vehicle for altering the identification document of the sanctioned person, since this was deliberately created with the purpose of proving to the DGT a non-existent legal situation.
The events occurred in 2015 when a company vehicle jumped a radar in Ponferrada at more speed than permitted. The financial penalty that entailed the loss of two points on the driving license was received at the company address of the driver who identified in the complaint bulletin his 82-year-old father with whom he did not maintain a good personal relationship. The businessman paid the fine but the points on his license were lost by his father who reported the facts.
The businessman was sentenced by the Provincial Court of León to nine months in prison and a 15,000 euro fine and filed an appeal before the Supreme Court due to contradictory jurisprudence from several hearings. The recent ruling of the High Court, whose speaker was Judge Carmen Lamela, concludes that this action is a crime of documentary falsification where the attempt of the sanctioned person to “mutate reality”, that this falsehood falls on essential elements of the document and with sufficient entity to affect the normal effects of legal relations and, finally, the concurrence of the “conscience and will to transmute the truth” on the part of the sanctioned person.
The magistrates consider that the accused “was not truthful” when answering the request made by the Administration to identify the driver of the sanctioned vehicle. Furthermore, he knew that the statement made was not true, “since it had been he and not his father who was driving the vehicle at the time of being sanctioned.” It is evident that such action caused direct harm to the person who identified himself, his father, with the intention of avoiding the loss of points on his driving license, although not the payment of the fine.
Ideological and material falsehood
The Supreme Court ruling differentiates between material and ideological falsehood. Although the document submitted for consideration by the magistrates is materially authentic as it is a form provided by the Administration, however, it cannot be considered legitimate in its content since does not respond to any realitywhich makes the “document in its entirety constitute a fallacy.”
The fined driver alleged in the appeal that his actions were an ideological falsehood – lacking the truth in the narration of the events – in an official document, a fact that is not included in the Penal Code when committed by individuals.
However, the magistrates reject this argument because “we are not facing the alteration of the truth of some of the points stated in the document, but rather the alteration of the document itselfsince this was deliberately created with the purpose of proving a non-existent legal situation in traffic.”
Furthermore, the conduct of the sanctioned person by falsifying reality is “sufficient in nature to affect the normal effects of legal relations” and has caused direct harm to his father, identified as the driver, by deducting two points from his driving license. circulation.
Owner Obligations
The consolidated text of the Law on Traffic, Circulation of Motor Vehicles and Road Safety establishes in its art. 11 that the owner of a vehicle has the obligation to provide the Administration with the identification of the driver of the vehicle at the time of committing an infraction.
The owner must provide the number of the sanctioned person’s driving permit or license in order to identify him in the Registry of Drivers and Offenders of the autonomous body of the Central Traffic Headquarters.
If the driver is not registered in this Registry, the owner must have a copy of the administrative authorization that entitles him to drive in Spain and provide it to the Administration when requested.
If the owner is a driverless vehicle rental company, the copy of the administrative authorization may be replaced by the copy of the rental contract.
Finally, the owner of the vehicle and regular driver must prevent the car from being driven by anyone who has never obtained the corresponding permit or driving license.
The Five Day Agenda
The most important economic quotes of the day, with the keys and context to understand their scope.
RECEIVE IT IN YOUR MAIL
#False #identification #driver #fined #Traffic #crime #Rights #Economy