Do Traffic Rules Prohibit Operating a Car Due to a Crack on the Windshield
Damage to the windscreen in the area covered by the wipers is not classified by the Traffic Rules as a technical malfunction that prohibits the operation of a vehicle. This conclusion was reached by the Rivne District Court of Rivne Region, which closed an administrative proceeding against a driver whom the police held accountable under Part 4 of Article 121 of the Code of Administrative Offences.
Case Circumstances
The police issued a report against the driver under Part 4 of Article 121 of the Code of Administrative Offences, stating that he repeatedly drove a car within a year with chips and cracks on the windscreen in the area covered by the wipers. According to law enforcement, this violated the requirements of DSTU 3649:2010 and clause 31.1 of the Traffic Rules. It was also noted as a basis for qualification under Part 4 of Article 121 that the driver had previously been held administratively liable under Article 121 of the Code of Administrative Offences.
The driver denied his guilt. He explained to the court that a crack on the windscreen is not included in the list of technical malfunctions defined by clause 31.4 of the Traffic Rules, which prohibit the operation of a vehicle. Therefore, in his opinion, his actions do not constitute an administrative offence. Additionally, he noted that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and needs the car for work and supporting his children.
Court's Position
After examining the case materials 570/1301/26, the court noted that liability under Article 121 of the Code of Administrative Offences arises only when a vehicle has technical malfunctions that prohibit its operation according to established rules.
The court stated that DSTU 3649:2010 indeed requires the absence of chips and cracks on the windscreen in the wiper area. However, this standard does not classify such damage as a technical malfunction of the vehicle.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that clause 31.4 of the Traffic Rules defines the list of technical malfunctions and discrepancies that prohibit vehicle operation. Clause 31.4.4 of the Traffic Rules concerns only malfunctions of the wipers or washers, while cracks or chips on the windscreen are not included in this list.
Thus, the court concluded that windscreen damage indicates a breach of its integrity but is not classified by the Traffic Rules as a technical malfunction that prohibits vehicle operation.
Separately, the court emphasised the principle of presumption of innocence and the standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," referring in particular to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The court noted that the burden of proving the administrative offence lies with the prosecution, and all doubts about the proof of guilt must be interpreted in favour of the accused.
Court Decision
The Rivne District Court of Rivne Region closed the proceedings in the case based on clause 1 of part 1 of article 247 of the Code of Administrative Offences due to the absence of the event and composition of the administrative offence, as stated in the operative part of the ruling.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.
