@misc{Wasiak_Dariusz_The_2013,
 author={Wasiak, Dariusz},
 copyright={Copyright by Dariusz Wasiak},
 address={Wrocław},
 howpublished={online},
 year={2013},
 publisher={E-Wydawnictwo. Prawnicza i Ekonomiczna Biblioteka Cyfrowa. Wydział Prawa, Administracji i Ekonomii Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego},
 language={pol},
 language={eng},
 abstract={This article is an attempt to answer the questions arising in connection with the application of Art. 96 § 3 of the Code of Petty Offences, which provides that a person who, despite his or her duties does not indicate at the request of the authorized body, who they have authorised to drive or use the vehicle in the fixed time is subject of a fine. Preventive and punitive purpose of the provision is linked with the number of traffic offenses disclosed by “traffic - speed cameras”. The main function of this provision is the pursuit of offenders violating established order and safety in the road transport. Application of the provision causes a great deal of problems in practice, both as regards establishing the execution of the element of the offence as well as the cohesion with other regulations of administrative law (competences of bodies) and criminal substantive and procedural law (especially the rights of the defence). As a result, instead of assisting in the detection of perpetrators of offences, a new specific countertype is created, leading the driver to avoid responsibility for criminal liability. Hence the demand for urgent removing of the legal loophole by enacting more effective regulations in this area.},
 title={The legitimacy of the provisions of art. 96 § 3 of the Code of Petty Offences},
 keywords={prawo publiczne, prawo prywatne, historia praw, teoria prawa},
}