Misdemeanour Proceedings and Fines

Often this is the most sensible moment to turn to a lawyer. In misdemeanour proceedings the first explanations, consents given on the spot and signed reports can later become important evidence. If you do not know exactly what you are accused of or what your rights are, acting without thinking it through can harm your position.

Before a procedural act a lawyer helps to assess what your role is, whether giving explanations is reasonable, which documents are worth bringing along and which questions you do not have to answer. This does not mean that you should avoid the proceedings or not communicate with the body conducting them. It means that you go to the procedural act prepared and know how to protect your rights.

A person subject to proceedings has no obligation to give statements against themselves or to provide explanations that may incriminate them. You may use this right even if you consider yourself innocent. Remaining silent or postponing the giving of explanations is not an admission of guilt, but often a sensible way to avoid a situation in which a person, under pressure, gives inaccurate or easily misunderstood answers.

At the same time, in some matters giving explanations can be useful, for example when it is possible to present at once evidence that rules out the violation or shows that the body conducting the proceedings has misunderstood the situation. The decision whether and when to give explanations should be well considered. Before giving substantive explanations it is worth consulting a lawyer.

You do not have to accept a fine decision automatically. A complaint can be filed against the decision, the misdemeanour report or the expedited procedure decision, but the law provides a fixed and often short time limit for this. In traffic matters and in expedited procedure there may be only a few days from receiving the decision to act. This is precisely why it is worth reading the decision immediately, noting the time limit and procedure for challenging it, and having the materials reviewed quickly.

If the time limit passes, challenging the decision can become very difficult or impossible even when the decision itself is open to dispute on the merits. For this reason it is sensible to act immediately after receiving the decision or report, not on the last day of the time limit. If the time limit has already passed, it is still worth checking whether there are grounds for restoring it or for other legal remedy.

The expedited procedure is a simplified form of misdemeanour proceedings in which the decision is made quickly and often at the scene, for example in the case of a traffic violation. Speed, however, does not mean that the decision is always correct on the merits or that it cannot be challenged. With an expedited procedure decision too it must be checked whether the violation is proven, whether the procedural requirements were followed and whether the punishment is proportionate.

In the expedited procedure it is important not to give explanations in haste or to sign documents without understanding what you are confirming by them. If the decision has already been made, it must be assessed whether the complaint has a reasonable basis. A ground for challenging may be, for example, the identification of the wrong person, an unreliable measurement result, an inadequate description of the violation or a punishment that is too strict.

Yes, a traffic fine can in certain cases be challenged. In speeding matters what may be important is the working order of the measuring device, the manner of measurement, the measurement error, the visibility of the traffic sign, road conditions, the identification of the vehicle or driver, and whether the body conducting the proceedings has described the violation correctly. In the case of automatic traffic surveillance it must be examined separately whether it is a cautionary fine, a fine imposed for a misdemeanour or another procedural document, because the further course of action depends on this.

It is not reasonable to challenge every fine simply as a matter of principle. It is, however, worth considering a challenge when the fine is large, the violation may affect the right to drive, the decision relies on unclear data or you have evidence that does not support the conclusions of the body conducting the proceedings. A lawyer helps to assess whether the dispute is justified on the merits and which arguments may work in court.

A driver generally has an obligation to submit to an intoxication check, for example to blow into an indicator device or an evidential breathalyser and, if necessary, to give a blood or urine sample. Refusing the check is not without consequences. Refusal is a separate violation that can also be punished, including by withdrawal of the right to drive. In other words, it is not possible to simply avoid punishment by refusing.

This does not mean that the outcome of the proceedings is decided in advance. In a later dispute it may be important whether the procedure for establishing intoxication was correct, whether the device was in order, verified, whether the measurement was carried out properly and whether the result is reliable. If you are suspected of driving while intoxicated, it is worth clarifying your rights and options as quickly as possible, because the consequences can extend to the loss of the right to drive and, in more serious cases, to criminal liability.

For some traffic misdemeanours, a bigger problem than the fine may be the withdrawal or suspension of the right to drive. This can affect getting to work, transporting children, the activity of a company or your entire everyday way of life. For this reason, in a traffic misdemeanour it is necessary to assess not only the amount of the fine but also whether and how likely a restriction of the right to drive is.

In the question of the right to drive, what may prove important is the seriousness of the violation, previous punishments, the circumstances of the specific case, the person’s work and way of life, and whether the same aim could be achieved with a more lenient punishment. If the right to drive is important for your work or family life, it is worth preparing the defence position before the decision has been made or the time limit for complaint has passed.

An unpaid fine does not disappear on its own. If the fine is not paid by the due date, it is generally submitted for compulsory enforcement and the recovery is then handled by a bailiff. The bailiff may direct the recovery, for example, at your bank account, income or property, and enforcement costs may be added, so the final sum grows. In certain cases a fine may be replaced with detention. If paying the fine in one go is difficult, it is worth examining as early as possible the possibility of deferral or payment in instalments, instead of ignoring the decision. If, however, you disagree with the decision on the merits, the right course is not to leave it unpaid but to challenge the decision within the time limit.

Yes, a misdemeanour penalty that has entered into force is recorded in the Criminal Records Database. In the case of a fine, detention or withdrawal of the right to drive, the entry is generally deleted from the database one year after the punishment has been carried out, for example after the fine has been paid. After that the entry moves to the archive, where it is kept for a further certain period and where it is visible only to a limited circle, for example to law enforcement authorities.

While the punishment is in force, the entry may in practice affect several things, for example the issue or renewal of a driving licence, a weapons permit, certain positions or permits. For this reason a misdemeanour penalty may not be only a one-off fine but may affect you in the future as well. It is precisely for this reason that a justified challenge may be important even when the fine amount itself does not seem large.

Yes. Misdemeanour proceedings can concern both a natural person and a legal person. A company’s liability may arise, for example, in the field of occupational safety, the environment, construction, commerce, taxation, data protection or other supervision. Often the question arises whether the violation was connected to the company’s organisation, whether a member of the management board or an employee fulfilled their duties and whether the company had taken reasonable steps to prevent the violation.

For a company, misdemeanour proceedings are not only a fine risk. The decision may affect procurements, activity licences, cooperation partners, insurance, reputation and further supervisory proceedings. For this reason, in a company’s misdemeanour matters it is worth involving a lawyer early, especially before submitting documents, giving written explanations or the questioning of a member of the management board.