Post by account_disabled on Feb 14, 2024 9:26:14 GMT
Apetitioner from paying the contravention fine in the amount of lei. JURY Cancellation of the report for the lack of the holographic signature of the ascertaining agent On .. an investigative agent from the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND ROADS COMPANY C. issued a report of contravention whereby the appellant was found to have committed the contravention provided for by art. para. of the OG. no. consisting of the fact that on .. at the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was driving on DN km m Mrcineni B. county without having a valid registration certificate.
In this case the disputed report was communicated to the petitioner by Mali Email List display as it appears from the proof of communication submitted to the file and the contravention complaint was filed on XXXXXXXXXX. However the court notes that by Decision no. regarding the adjudication of the appeal in the interest of the law pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and published in the Official Gazette Part I no. of .. the supreme court established that the main way of communicating the report of the infringement is that of communication by registered letter with confirmation of receipt communication by display having a subsidiary character.
In this case the respondent did not prove the attempt to communicate the minutes in this manner prior to the display so the petitioner has time to file a contravention complaint . contravention the court notes that it was not drawn up in compliance with the mandatory mentions provided under the penalty of nullity under art. of OG no. missing the holographic signature of the ascertaining agent. To decide in this regard the court considers Decision no. of the .CCJ by which the appeal was admitted in the interest of the law formulated by the Peoples Advocate ruling that In the interpretation.
In this case the disputed report was communicated to the petitioner by Mali Email List display as it appears from the proof of communication submitted to the file and the contravention complaint was filed on XXXXXXXXXX. However the court notes that by Decision no. regarding the adjudication of the appeal in the interest of the law pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and published in the Official Gazette Part I no. of .. the supreme court established that the main way of communicating the report of the infringement is that of communication by registered letter with confirmation of receipt communication by display having a subsidiary character.
In this case the respondent did not prove the attempt to communicate the minutes in this manner prior to the display so the petitioner has time to file a contravention complaint . contravention the court notes that it was not drawn up in compliance with the mandatory mentions provided under the penalty of nullity under art. of OG no. missing the holographic signature of the ascertaining agent. To decide in this regard the court considers Decision no. of the .CCJ by which the appeal was admitted in the interest of the law formulated by the Peoples Advocate ruling that In the interpretation.