Through various channels, the new priority of the police prosecutor's office surely already came to your attention.
In recent weeks, quite a few companies received heavy fines in the form of out-of-court settlements for failing to disclose the identity of the driver who committed an offence with a vehicle registered in the company's name. Why are these fines being issued and is there a legal basis for them?
When an offence is committed with a vehicle registered in the name of a company, it is often impossible for the public prosecutor - unless the usual driver is registered - to find out who was driving the vehicle at the time. As a result, a fine can only be issued to the company and not to the effective driver. As a result, the prosecution considers that there is a kind of 'impunity' for that driver.
To counter this, the public prosecutor invariably sends - in addition to a fine - an invitation to the company to communicate who the effective driver of the vehicle was within 15 days. However, the company often pays the fine but forgets to communicate the identity of the driver. Recently, this forgetfulness has been heavily fined by the public prosecutor's office. In this way, the public prosecutor hopes to be able to better link the company-registered vehicle to the actual offender in the future, so that they can be punished.
The legal basis for this fine to the 'forgetful' company is found in section 67to of the Road Traffic Act, which obliges the legal person (company) - or the natural person legally representing the legal person - to notify the identity of the driver at the request of the public prosecutor when an offence has been committed with a vehicle registered in the name of the company where the actual driver cannot be identified, within 15 days from the date on which the request for information was sent. Failure to notify the driver may result in a fine or a summons before the police court where the minimum fine for the company is EUR 4,000.00 and for the natural person representing the company is EUR 1,600.00.
To avoid this fine, the company can preventively have the usual driver of a vehicle registered in the Crossroads Bank for Vehicles. In the case of an offence where the effective driver was not identified, the registered driver is deemed to have been the effective driver of the vehicle, in accordance with Article 67bis Road Traffic Act.
A recent judgment of the Court of Cassation ruled that - in accordance with Article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the public prosecutor must be able to prove effectively that the demand for information was offered at the company's headquarters. In other words, this judgment leaves room for contestation as the Public Prosecutor bears the burden of proof regarding the effective receipt of the fine.
In other words, the prosecution seems to be fighting this form of 'impunity'. However, whether the rising protest from various companies will have an impact on the prosecution's modus operandi remains to be seen....
