Amende Confinement Legal

Amende Confinement Legal

TORONTO (Reuters) – The use of solitary confinement in Canada`s federal prisons is unconstitutional, a Canadian judge said on Wednesday in a decision that could end the controversial practice unless Ottawa appeals the decision. Be careful before following the advice of Bruno Gysels, a lawyer specializing in road traffic, who urged people on RTL not to pay the “Corona” fines [13]. In fact, his counsel only referred to the hypothesis of a criminal settlement, because if the fine goes through the administrative route or if the case has already been heard before the criminal judge, then the risk of recovery by a bailiff is very real and the amount can double from his first intervention. The lawyer`s hypothesis is based on a traffic jam at the level of prosecutors and courts at the time of the summons to court. But no one can predict how it can be absorbed. [9] Indeed, the General Police Regulations of the 19 Brussels Municipalities have recently been harmonized and stipulate in one of their articles that “any person who is in public space must first respond to the orders of the police and then meet the requirements of the police, who are responsible for enforcing the laws. Anordnungen und Reglemente”. A sanctioning officer therefore has the right to impose a fully legal SAC if the offender refuses to respond to an injunction due to COVID-19-related measures. Almost 4 days after the 1st. Containment measures, the government announced that a sanctions regime would be introduced because they were not sufficiently respected. Since then, several actors in the judicial world have made appearances in the press to denounce the illegal nature of these sanctions, to ask them to challenge them or not to pay them at all.

If you have read in the press the comments of a lawyer asking not to pay the “Corona” fines [10], you know that this only applies to the legal procedure. His reasoning is based on the fact that the prosecutors, overwhelmed, will only pursue the most serious cases, but as in the case of SAC, the prosecutor`s office does not intervene, the argument does not hold. We will come back to this later in the article. [6] In addition, it should be noted that Belgian fines for “corona” crimes are among the highest in Europe [14] and that they mainly affect the poorest and youngest sections of the population. Without wanting to justify these behaviors, it may be more difficult to comply with containment measures if we do not have a garden or if our living conditions and therefore our living conditions are more precarious. At the time of the establishment of the crime, the police officer may offer to sign a document called a “criminal transaction” and offer you immediate payment. By signing the transaction, you accept the circumstances of the violation and the amount of the fine. By paying the fine on time, you delete the criminal procedure and avoid a possible mention in your criminal record. If you do not pay on time, the prosecutor`s office will have to summon you before a judge to obtain a conviction and hire a judicial officer. The signing of the transaction therefore does not confer an enforceable title on the Public Prosecutor`s Office, but makes your task considerably more difficult if you wish to oppose it later. Since 17 March, nearly 900,000 oral proceedings have reportedly been©© initiated© for non-compliance with the lockdown. A decree of 17 March 2020 (Decree No.

2020-264) ©added© to our legal arsenal a violation “to give©priority to the violation of the measures envisaged for the future and limit the consequences©of serious threats to the health© of the population”. © Article L3136-1 of the Public©Health© Code stipulates©©that the violation of the containment regulations will now©be punishable by the fine for©violations of the fourth class (135 euros, up to 375 euros in case of increase). If this violation is reinstated© within fifteen©days, the fine is that provided©for fifth-class offences. For several weeks, many have been able©to complain about controls and verbalizations that could prove©©abusive (receiving reports of offenses when people had not been subject to any control, verbalization based on subjective interpretations©and outside the scope of the police forces, bag searches©and visual checks…). © While these fines raise many questions, in particular because of the quite exceptional nature of their creation, the nature of the challenge remains possible and remains close to the same procedure© as that applicable to any other infringement The order of 25 March 2020 (Regulation No. 2020-303) extended the usual deadlines for challenging© infringement notices©: the time limit©is thus© reduced from 45 days to 90 days (and from 30 days to two months in the case of Notice of Increase©of Lump Sum Fines). The litigation period©begins on the day of notification of the breach and not on the day of receipt©. Therefore, to raise objections, we recommend that you respond immediately upon receipt of the 1st envelope with factual arguments based on the circumstances of the crime, for example. justifying that it was indeed an essential trip, that there is an error about the person, or that the person with whom you were checked was indeed part of your household. Each argument must be well detailed and, if possible, accompanied by proof (received – word from the employer, composition of the household,…). If you have no counter-arguments and have actually violated the lockdown measures, the advice is to pay as soon as possible.

Update 2021-03-15: It is no longer possible to impose corona fines through the administrative route for infringements after 29.06.2020.

Share this post