I.A. Kasper challenges the constitutionality of Part 4 of Article 18.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences applied when bringing him to administrative responsibility. This provision provides for administrative liability for the use of alcoholic beverages, low-alcohol beverages or beer, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues, toxic or other intoxicating substances by a driver after an employee of the internal affairs bodies has given a signal to stop the vehicle or after a traffic accident in which the driver is involved, before undergoing an inspection (examination) to determine the state of alcoholic intoxication or a state caused by the use of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues, toxic or other intoxicating substances.

The citizen believes that Part 4 of Article 18.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences does not comply with the Constitution, since it contains a gap and legal uncertainty, expressed in the fact that the said provision does not establish a period during which the driver is prohibited from drinking alcoholic beverages after an accident. Such legal regulation, according to the applicant, violates his right to free movement and the right to judicial protection provided for in Articles 30 and 60 of the Constitution.

In the adopted ruling, the Constitutional Court indicated that in order to prevent administrative offences Article 18.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences establishes certain legal prohibitions on the commission of illegal acts directed against the safety of traffic and the operation of transport, including a ban on the consumption of alcoholic beverages, low-alcohol beverages or beer by the driver after the driver has committed an accident in which he is a participant, before undergoing an inspection (examination) to determine the state of alcohol intoxication, and provides for administrative liability for their violation. Such legal regulation is determined by the nature of the relationship between the driver, operating a vehicle as a source of increased danger, and other road users, and is consistent with the constitutional and legal duty of everyone to respect the dignity, rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of others and the duty of the legislator to provide appropriate legal mechanisms for this.

The Constitutional Court confirmed the legal position previously expressed in the ruling of 17 December 2024 No. O-2/2024, noting that the said legal prohibitions are legitimate, since they are conditioned by the requirements to ensure road safety by excluding vehicles that are driven by persons in a condition that impairs their reaction and attention, which creates an increased danger for road users, and are also caused by the need to objectively and comprehensively establish all the circumstances of the incident.

The provision of Part 4 of Article 18.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences meets the above requirements and constitutes a legal guarantee of execution by drivers of their duties, which contributes to the reliable establishment of all the circumstances of the accident necessary for the correct resolution of the issue of the fair liability of the person guilty of committing the accident. This provision also ensures the protection by the state of the rights of individuals injured in the accident.

Thus, in the system of current legal regulation, the provision of Part 4 of Article 18.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences, aimed at ensuring road safety and protecting the rights of individuals, cannot be considered as violating the constitutional rights of the applicant in the aspect indicated by him.

The discussion of the factual circumstances of a specific case and the assessment of the court decision on the merits of the case when reviewing the law applied in a specific case on a constitutional complaint are not within the competence of the Constitutional Court (paragraph 2 of Article 161 of the Law “On the Constitutional Proceedings”).

Based on the results of the consideration of the submitted materials, the Constitutional Court refused to initiate proceedings on the case on the individual complaint, since there are no signs of violation of the constitutional rights of the applicant. The constitutional complaint does not meet the admissibility condition defined by subparagraph 1.1 of paragraph 1 of Article 153 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus “On the Constitutional Proceedings”.