Amenda rutieră prin cameră, proprietarul înregistrat și prescripția
On 3 January 2025, an automated camera recorded a car travelling at 92 km/h in a 50 km/h zone in Chișinău. The car was registered in the State Register to Andrei. On 15 December 2024 Andrei had sold the car to Maria under a handwritten sale contract, but the registration was not changed. On 28 July 2025, a contraventional protocol was drawn up against Andrei for exceeding the speed limit. It was sent by registered mail and received on 5 August 2025. Andrei filed a challenge, arguing that he was not the driver and that the authority waited too long. The authority replies that the registered owner is liable for camera-detected violations and that the protocol was issued within the legal term because the case was under examination.
1. Can Andrei be held liable if he had already sold the car?
Read the worked answer
The starting point for camera-detected violations is the registered owner, because the authority cannot identify the driver from the image alone. That presumption is rebuttable. Andrei must prove the sale: a dated handwritten contract, transfer of possession, payment, insurance documents and any messages with Maria. The fact that the registration was not changed weakens his position but does not make him automatically liable if he proves that Maria was the actual user.
The authority should first seek to identify the driver. If it can establish that Maria was driving, the protocol should be issued against her. If it cannot, the registered owner may remain liable, but only if the presumption is not rebutted. The court should not accept a bare assertion of sale; it must assess the evidence. The failure to register the transfer is relevant to the owner's own fault but is not the same as committing the speeding offence.
2. Was the contraventional liability prescribed on 28 July 2025?
Read the worked answer
The general rule is that contraventional liability cannot be applied after six months from the commission of the offence. The offence was recorded on 3 January 2025, so the six-month period expired on 3 July 2025. The protocol of 28 July 2025 was drawn up after that date. The authority's statement that the case was 'under examination' does not by itself suspend or interrupt the term unless a specific legal ground applies.
The court must verify the exact legal limitation period for this category of contravention and whether any suspension occurred. If the general six-month term applies, the liability is prescribed and the sanction cannot be applied, regardless of who was driving. Prescription is a mandatory bar that the court must examine. The late protocol cannot be saved by the fact that the owner did not update the registration. The challenge should succeed on prescription even before the question of the actual driver is decided.
3. What procedural defects could Andrei invoke besides prescription?
Read the worked answer
Andrei should inspect the protocol for the date, time, place, facts, the legal norm, the evidence, the identity of the agent and the explanation of his rights. If the protocol was drawn up in his absence without a lawful summons, he can argue that his right to defence was violated. He should also check whether the camera was certified, whether the image identifies the car and the speed, and whether the measurement conditions were documented.
The communication date matters for the challenge deadline. If the protocol reached him on 5 August 2025, his challenge should be assessed as timely if filed within the legal term from that date. A defective protocol may be annulled, but not every formal defect leads to nullity; the court must ask whether the defect caused prejudice. The strongest combined arguments are prescription, lack of proof that Andrei was the driver, and any failure to summon him before the protocol was finalised.