In Tashkent, a lawyer and a court have entered into a public dispute over a fine issued based on data from a mobile camera system

In Tashkent, a lawyer and a court have publicly argued over a fine issued based on data from a mobile system.

A public controversy has unfolded in Tashkent surrounding the legality of a fine issued based on data from a mobile system. The trigger was a post by a lawyer known on Telegram under the pseudonym Abdumalikovich: he questioned the legal grounds of the court decision and pointed to a potential contradiction between certain norms of the current procedure for using radars.

According to the lawyer, the criminal judicial panel of the Tashkent City Court, chaired by Judge Shamshiev, granted the cassation appeal of Adilov, the head of the Road Safety Department of the Tashkent Main Department of Internal Affairs, and upheld the fine.

As the legal basis, the court, as the lawyer claims, cited paragraphs 31 and 37 of the Regulation on the procedure for interaction between road patrol service officers and road users and the use of special devices, approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 975 dated December 1, 2018.

At the same time, according to the lawyer, the application of these norms requires a separate legal analysis.

Abdumalikovich draws attention to the definitions contained in Regulation No. 975 itself.

In the document, special devices include, in particular, special automated technical means of audio, photo, and video recording, as well as portable photo radars and mobile systems, breathalyzers, drug testers, tablets, and other special technical means.

According to the lawyer, the wording itself allows for the separation of special automated photo and video recording means and portable photo radars with mobile systems as different categories of devices.

He then points to paragraph 31 of the Regulation. According to the norm he cited, when using portable photo radars and mobile systems, the recording of traffic violations is carried out in the manner prescribed by paragraph 37.

However, it is precisely the content of paragraph 37 that, in the lawyer's opinion, raises the main question.

It states that in accordance with Article 309¹ of the Code of Administrative Responsibility, if an administrative offense is recorded by special automated technical means of photo and video recording, the decision to impose a fine is issued without drawing up a protocol and without the participation of the person who committed the offense.

At the same time, as Abdumalikovich notes, this wording of paragraph 37 does not explicitly name portable photo radars and mobile systems.

This is precisely why the lawyer asks whether the simplified procedure for issuing a decision provided for in paragraph 37 applies directly to mobile systems.

He also draws attention to paragraph 29 of the same Regulation.

According to the norm he cited, if a driver disagrees with the readings recorded by a special device, the relevant situation is documented with the participation of witnesses.

Thus, according to Abdumalikovich, a potential contradiction arises: one procedure provides for issuing a decision without the participation of the offender, while another speaks of the procedure for documenting the situation when the driver disagrees with the readings of the special device.

It is this contradiction that the lawyer believes must be separately considered when assessing the legality of the fine.

He wonders why the court that heard the case did not provide a separate assessment of the relationship between these provisions.

In his post, the lawyer also recalls that judicial practice on cases concerning fines related to mobile systems has already been established in Uzbekistan, and the Supreme Court has previously provided relevant clarifications.

At the same time, he raises the question of how situations should be resolved when different provisions of the same regulatory act can be interpreted ambiguously.

Following the lawyer's post, the official channel of the Tashkent City Courts published an appeal.

The court emphasized that, according to the legislation, only a higher judicial instance has the right to provide a legal assessment of the decisions of lower courts.

At the same time, the opinion of a party to the proceedings, including a lawyer, regarding a specific judicial act is, in the court's view, their argument and legal position, but is not a "legal assessment" of the court decision in the procedural sense.

This is precisely why the court criticized the lawyer's phrasing regarding his intention to "give a legal assessment" of the grounds for the judicial panel's decision.

According to the court, a lawyer has the right to express their thoughts and use the opportunities of social networks, but must not present a subjective position as an indisputably established fact and mislead the audience. The message also noted that such requirements relate to the professional ethics of a lawyer and had previously been communicated to the author of the post.

Thus, the court essentially proposed to separate the lawyer's legal position from the official legal assessment of the court decision, which can be provided within the framework of the case review by a higher instance.

In response, Abdullayev stated that the court's position mixes two different concepts.

According to him, indeed, only a higher court has the right to overturn, amend, or uphold a decision of a lower court. However, this, in the lawyer's opinion, does not mean that a lawyer cannot independently study a judicial act, analyze its content, and express an opinion on the decision's compliance with the legislation.

As an example, he cited the situation with a medical opinion: one doctor can analyze and criticize the diagnosis of another doctor without becoming the chief physician.

The lawyer also referred to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, pointing to paragraph 23 of the document, which establishes the right of lawyers to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice, and the promotion and protection of human rights.

Abdullayev emphasized that in this case he did not assess the personality of the judge, did not insult him, did not disclose confidential information, and did not call on the public to oppose the court.

According to him, he analyzed specifically the legal grounds of the court decision, asked questions about the application of specific norms, and expressed his legal position.

"This is a lawyer performing his professional duties" — this is essentially what his position boils down to: a lawyer's right to analyze a court decision is part of their professional activity.

At the same time, the lawyer admitted that one can disagree with his arguments and refute them with other legal arguments. However, he believes, the answer to a legal question must also be legal.

"If a lawyer cannot openly analyze even a court decision, whose decision is he supposed to analyze at all?" he asks.

Public figure Abdurakhman Tashanov also joined the discussion. He called what was happening a "storm in a teacup."

Tashanov noted that in recent years, he and his team, as well as the lawyers he cooperates with, have been actively raising problems in the judicial and legal sphere. At the same time, he suggested viewing the current situation not as a confrontation between lawyers and the court, but as a conflict over different functions.

On one side, in his opinion, are lawyers who try to bring existing problems to the public's attention. On the other is the court's press service, which tries to publicly explain what is happening.

Tashanov separately praised the activity of the press service of the Tashkent City Courts, noting that by no means all state structures react as actively to public criticism.

At the same time, he admitted that from the outside, it might look bad when a public war of words arises between lawyers and the press service.

In his opinion, lawyers should understand the complexity of the work of public relations departments of state bodies, and press services should take into account the critical nature of lawyers' work, especially when it comes to problems in the judicial and legal system.

The public correspondence between the lawyer and the court in this case has actually gone beyond the scope of a dispute over the wording of a single post.

On one hand, the Tashkent City Court points to a procedural boundary: only a court of the appropriate instance can overturn or amend a court decision, and a lawyer's position in itself does not become a judicial legal assessment.

On the other hand, the lawyer speaks of a different level — the professional analysis of a judicial act and public legal discussion. He does not claim that his post automatically changes the court's decision, but questions the application of specific norms and proposes to discuss their content.

At the same time, the original dispute over the fine remains the main legal issue. If the provisions of paragraphs 29, 31, and 37 of Regulation No. 975 indeed apply to the very same situation, it is necessary to establish how they relate to each other and whether the procedure provided for in paragraph 37 for issuing a decision without the driver's participation applies to violations recorded specifically by a portable photo radar or a mobile system.

It is the answer to this question, rather than a dispute over who has the right to use the expression "legal assessment," that is capable of putting an end to the discussion.

For now, the parties are actually conducting two parallel discussions: the lawyer on the content and application of legal norms, and the court on the limits of a lawyer's public statements and the procedural status of such an assessment. And both of them lead to one broader question: how open should the legal discussion around court decisions be, and how should state bodies respond to professional criticism.