Dear,
and the Ministry of the Interior, with its circular dated 01.25.2008 No m/6326150, we clarify - in my opinion, a duty - that the driver who drives a vehicle subject to tax will still apply only to an administrative penalty.
Ministry with this circular explains that the firm tax does not represent "a real breach of the rules of the road but in a measure provided security for a debt."
The same attorney general of the State points out that in case of violation of the tax must still be high only the fine "without impounding the vehicle."
Then the statement, the collection will be sent to the dealer that the detaining tax in order to allow the seizure of the vehicle.
Here is the full circular callback
"Ministry of the Interior
m/6326150 Circular of January 25, 2008
Prot No M/6326150-2l
Rome, January 25, 2008 No
Herds 2
- THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Central Directorate for Road Police Station, Communications and the Special Forces of the State Police WITHIN
and, for information:
prefects REPUBLIC OF THEIR LOCATIONS
THE COMMISSIONER OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE PROVINCE OF TRENTO
THE COMMISSIONER OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE PROVINCE OF BOLZANO
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REGIONAL VALLE D'AOSTA AOSTA
SUBJECT: administrative detention of movable property registered under art. 86 of DPR 602/73 and subsequent application of Article. 214, paragraph 8 of the Decree. No 285/92 (Highway Code).
a note dated October 17 last, which is attached a copy, this Office has submitted to the State Attorney General's concerns and questions raised with regard to the provisions set out in the object.
In particular, it is requested to resolve the statutory interpretation disputes, which arose with the Inland Revenue, in order to identify the competent authority to impose the penalties provided in conjunction with art. 86, para 3, presidential decree No. 602/1973 and art. 214, paragraph 8, of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992. As is known, Chapter III of Decree 602/1973 lays down rules details relating to expropriation of property registered, ruling art. 86, paragraph 3, that "anyone traveling in vehicles ...... detention and subject to the penalty provided for in art. 214, paragraph 8, of Legislative Decree April 30, 1992, No. 285." In turn, the said Article provides the rules of the road states that "anyone using a vehicle subject to administrative detention," notwithstanding the application of criminal penalties for violation of the obligations on the part of the caretaker, is subject to administrative penalty of payment of a sum of € 656.00 to € 2628.00. E 'willing, also, the confiscation of the vehicle ".
In the absence of specific indications, has repeatedly occurred that the police, when verifying the violation, they ordered the seizure of the vehicle, pursuant to art. 213, D. Leg. 285/1992, and have submitted their reports to the prefectures, in the mistaken assumption that, since the penalties provided by the Highway Code, was the Prefect of the competent authority to take the measure scalers.
In fact, this Administration believes that there are grounds to suggest that the Prefect of the power to impose sanctions for breaches of the ban on movement of vehicles subject to stop "tax" was not a genuine violation of the rules the highway code, but a measure introduced to ensure di un credito.
In data 6 dicembre u.s., l'Avvocatura Generale, auspicando comunque un intervento normativo che riordini la materia particolarmente complessa, si è espressa sulla questione.
In proposito, l'Organo legale sostiene che, nel caso di accertamento della violazione del combinato disposto dell'art. 86, comma 3, del D.P.R. n. 602/73 con l'art. 214, comma 8 del C.d.s, gli organi di polizia debbano elevare verbale di contestazione, applicando la sola sanzione pecuniaria, senza procedere al sequestro del veicolo. Gli stessi devono poi trasmettere il verbale di accertamento della violazione al concessionario della riscossione che ha disposto il c.d. "fermo fiscale", al fine di consentire il pignoramento del veicolo. In any case competent to assess any claims of merit is the Prefect.
orientation so expressed, albeit based on arguments not entirely peaceful, however, resolved, definitively, questions and doubts about the application of the accessory penalty of forfeiture, as provided by the recent amendment of Art. 214, paragraph 8, the Security Council, in the event of a breach of Article. 86, paragraph 3 of Decree 602/73.
the light of the circumstances, it is considered appropriate to bring the activity to sanction Attorney General's Opinion.
THE CENTRAL PENTA "
0 comments:
Post a Comment