Collaborators AreaOffense against road safety
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Uninterrupted and non-fragmented execution of the penalty of deprivation of the driver's license
under the influence of alcohol . The sentence imposed a fine and the deprivation of the right to drive for 2 years. Upon appealing, the court ruled in his favor only partially, reducing both the fine and the license suspension to 1 year and 3 months.
The convicted individual appealed again , this time before the Supreme Court (SC). The SC did not accept the reason he tried to use to dispute the proven facts and how the evidence was obtained. Nor did it uphold his complaint about undue delays , as it depended on very specific date circumstances. However, it did analyze a point it deemed relevant; the convict requested that, during the enforcement phase, he be allowed to “fractionate” the license withdrawal , meaning to serve it in parts (for example, weekends, holidays, or other time "windows"). He argued that he was a professional driver and that losing his license continuously caused him economic and work-related harm.
The Prosecutor objected The withdrawal had to be carried out continuously for the time set in the sentence. The Supreme Court, in addition, noted that there were different criteria in Provincial Courts and established doctrine the deprivation of the right to drive is carried out continuously and cannot be done "à la carte" for work reasons.
In proceedings arising from facts related to the driving of motor vehicles, our lawyers are at your disposal to defend your interests
CONTENIDO RELACIONADO
-
Crimes of misappropriation and fraud
Misappropriation of amounts delivered to complete a housing promotion The case revolves around a real estate promotion in Riogordo (Málaga), consisting of 20 homes, managed by a promoting company. In the first stage, two people were listed as joint administrators (although one of them handled the daily management). Between 2008 and 2009, several homes were sold and buyers delivered amounts on account. Some were even given the keys, despite the fact that the work was not actually finished (it was said to be 90% complete), no deed was granted, and the construction company ended up abandoning due to non-payments. The result was that buyers found themselves living in houses without deeds and without a clear situation in the Registry. Some time later, those administrators sold their shares and a third person entered as the sole administrator. This new administrator was aware of the previous problem, but still asked some buyers for additional money (for example, 8,000 euros) on the argument that it was to complete the promotion. The relevant point is that this money was not used for what was promised nor was it returned. Furthermore, between 2010 and 2011, new sales of homes occurred under similar conditions, and later the entire set of 20 homes was sold to another company, generating a serious conflict between those who had bought earlier and those who appeared later as titleholders. The Provincial Court acquitted the first two administrators (it was not proven that they had diverted the money), but convicted the last one for aggravated misappropriation and fraud. The Supreme Court (TS) confirmed the conviction and rejected the appeal as it did not accept reopening the evaluation of the evidence and considered the denial of new documentation correct because it referred to subsequent facts and was not relevant to what was judged.
-
Union law
The CJEU supports the Amnesty Law for normalizing the situation in Catalonia
-
Gender violence
Illegal detention and attempted homicide
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.