In 2007, drunk driving killed 79 people in 518 car accidents in Estonia. That's more than one-fifth of all traffic accidents and one-third of fatal accidents. This is an outrageous figure in today's society.
Increased drunk-driving enforcement under the Estonian National Traffic Safety Program has resulted in questions on punishment for driving under the influence (DUI). The first DUI is a misdemeanor which, according to Estonian Traffic Law section 74.19, is punishable by a fine of up to 300 fine-units (one fine-unit being 60 kroons or 4 euro) or detention, with supplementary punishment by suspension of driving privileges from three to nine months. A second offense is considered a crime (Penal Code section 424), which calls for pecuniary punishment of up to 3 years in prison. Despite the harshness, DUI remains a popular offense among Estonians, and more effective methods have been almost impossible to find, until a recent ruling by the Supreme Court.
The three essential ingredients of a DUI cocktail are alcohol, a driver and a vehicle. Tallinn removed alcohol from the mix, prohibiting its sale between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. This restraint softens, to sales from 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. Though the tactic has since been adopted by the entire state, it's shown few results. To deal with the second ingredient, the driver, we already suspend driving privileges. So that leaves the third ingredient, and here we find a prospective solution: restrict the right of ownership of the vehicle.
The precedent was set in February 2007, when the court of first instance suspended the defendant's driving privileges for one year, ordered 540 hours of community service and seized the offender's car under Penal Code 83 section1.
Judicial proceedings reached all the way to the Supreme Court en banc, which set a precedent on June 12, 2008, by upholding the original ruling. The court declared that forfeiture of the vehicle in some DUI cases is a constitutional measure that may be taken in order to diminish the number of alcohol-related fatalities. Although the ruling came with three dissenting opinions, the precedent was set. The dissenting opinions relied on several judicial weaknesses in regulation, or in legal reasoning in general.
The first obstacle arose from the question of whether the vehicle in a DUI should be treated as an "object" or an "instrument" of the offense. The Supreme Court concluded that the difference between an object and an instrument of the offense can be shown by the following test: Is the offense remitted as the "object" (i.e. the vehicle) or is the offense only committable because of the participation of the vehicle? The driver uses the vehicle in traffic for multiple purposes, but at the same time, the driver (regardless of intent) commits an offense: the DUI. Hence, in judicial proceedings, the vehicle should be considered the "instrument of the offense," which allows the implentation of Penal Code section 83 paragraph 1 (forfeiture of the instrument of offense) in a criminal matter.
The second obstacle was verifying whether Penal Code 83 section 1 is constitutional in this case under part 32 section 2 of the Constitution of Estonia, corresponding with the conclusion reached above: that the vehicle is the instrument of the offense. According to part 32 section 2, the property shall not be used contrary to the public interest. Drunkenness significantly impairs control over the vehicle, increasing the probability of a fatal accident. Therefore, the driver threatens other drivers' fundamental rights: life and property. Beyond any doubt the state is obliged to take action and ensure that certain measures are in place to protect the above-mentioned constitutional rights.
No doubt these statistics had been taken into account by the court. The legal system should be able to protect us from the reckless. Legislators waited for the ruling; several laws have since been drafted allowing the forfeiture of the vehicle even if leased or in common ownership.
If a vehicle can be driven by those in disregard of his or her past offenses, willfully ignorant of the potentially fatal consequences of actions, then ownership of the vehicle should be forfeited.
Concerning the conflict of iura novit curia ("the court knows the laws") and iura novat curia ("the court renews the laws"), this driver in question, had been driving the same vehicle for the fourth time in two years 's drunk again.
Simo Soolo is a lawyer at Glikman & Partnerid, a member firm of the Baltic Legal Solutions, a pan-Baltic integrated network of law firms including Kronbergs & Cukste in Latvia and Jurevicius, Balciunas & Bartkus in Lithuania, dedicated to providing a quality 'one-stop shop' approach to clients' needs in the Baltics.
