Collaborators AreaCrime against road safety
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Increased risk of accidents due to removal and theft of traffic signs
A man was convicted of a crime against road safety for hitting, bending, removing, and stealing several traffic signs in Rubí (Barcelona) in the early morning. Specifically, he bent two signs (one for no parking for trucks and another for pedestrian crossing) and also removed a STOP sign and another for no entry, taking two of them to his backyard. With this, the courts consider that he increased the danger in traffic , because drivers could be confused about the rules in that area.
The accused appealed stating, basically, that it was not proven that he intended to affect road safety or that a "serious" danger to traffic had been created. But the Supreme Court (TS) explains that this crime does not require that an accident occurs or there is specific danger and proven with a victim, but it is enough to generate a serious "abstract" risk for traffic, that is, an objectively dangerous situation due to the disappearance or alteration of the signaling. In addition, the Supreme Court reasons that if someone breaks or removes signs, they are aware that this necessarily affects traffic safety , because signs are used to inform and regulate traffic.
The Supreme Court corrects the way the case was punished since it understands that it is not appropriate convict also for a crime of damages , because the "damage" is already included in the act of canceling or altering the signaling of the road safety offense. That's why it cancels the conviction for damages and only leaves the offense under art.385.1 of the Criminal Code.
Our lawyers guarantee the defense of your rights in proceedings arising from acts that could constitute a crimeCONTENIDO 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.