The client’s problem
A client approached DSA GROUP after the police had brought administrative proceedings against him under Article 130(1) of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences (CUAO). The police claimed that he had been driving under the influence of alcohol, which carried a substantial fine and a driving ban.
What our lawyer did
The client was represented in court by attorney Pavlo Ivchenko. During the hearing, the defence moved to close the proceedings because there was no proper and admissible evidence that the client had been intoxicated.
Having reviewed the case file, the defence established that:
- the intoxication examination had been carried out in breach of the law;
- the doctors had concluded that the client was intoxicated solely on the basis of outward signs;
- no special technical devices had been used to measure alcohol levels;
- no laboratory tests of blood or other biological samples had been performed;
- the case file contained no evidence that the client had actually been intoxicated.
Legal position
The defence pointed out to the court that, following amendments to the Instruction on the procedure for intoxication examinations, a medical examination at a healthcare facility must be carried out using special technical devices. A doctor’s conclusion based solely on outward signs, without instrumental or laboratory testing, cannot be regarded as proper evidence of alcohol intoxication.
The court also accepted the defence’s argument that refusing to undergo an examination and driving while intoxicated are different offences. The police had charged the client with driving while intoxicated, not with refusing an examination.
Outcome:
The Ratnivskyi District Court of Volyn Oblast agreed with the defence and found that there was no proper evidence of driving under the influence of alcohol. The medical examination report was held invalid because the prescribed procedure had not been followed.
As a result, the court closed the proceedings for lack of the elements of the administrative offence under Article 130(1) CUAO.
Outcome for the client: the client avoided a fine, a driving ban and other adverse consequences of administrative liability. Professional defence in the administrative offence proceedings allowed us to fully protect the client’s rights.
