| Abstract [eng] |
This paper reviews and analyzes the development, elements, and potential issues of Article 2811 (1) of the Criminal Code in relation to the application of the concept of driving under the influence and measures of criminal enforcement. The paper aims to review and reveal the essential evolution of the criminalization of driving while intoxicated since the adoption and entry into effect of the new Criminal Code. Reveal the relation between the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offenses when examining the relevant offense. Reveal the elements of the criminal offense provided for in Article 2811 (1) of the Criminal Code and to review the alternative criminal offenses established within this criminal offense. To review the issue and challenges of exemption from criminal liability when applying the institution of a surety, and to assess whether criminal liability for driving while intoxicated is becoming a mere formality. To determine who qualifies as a suitable surety. To review the criminal sanctions applied in conjunction with the institution of surety. The research methods used in this work allowed for a comprehensive examination of the legal issues presented, an exploration of the content of legal acts, a comparison and analysis of different legal acts and formulations of criminal offenses, as well as an explanation of key concepts (inductive method, teleological method, comparative analysis method, analytical method, linguistic method, analogy method, and generalization method). This paper consists of three main parts: the evolution of the criminal offense in question, its structure, and problematic aspects of the institution of a surety. After analyzing the aspects of the objectives set forth, it is determined that the most important aspect is that the current wording of Article 2811 (1) of the Criminal Code is the result of 26 years of legislative development. To establish this offense, it must be proven that the vehicle was driven by an intoxicated person, with blood alcohol levels exceeding the legal limit. When evaluating the institution of a surety in relation to this offense, it should be noted that until 2025, there was a steady percentage increase in the application of the institution of a surety. The imbalance created by the institution of surety is offset by a criminal sanction – the confiscation of property (a vehicle). |
