Abstract

The commented judgment is extremely significant, especially for the practice, as regards the establishment of culpability of an offender under Art. 179 of the Penal Code. Deliberate fault (dolus eventualis) is frequently confused with conscious unintentionality, with the latter not fulfilling the statutory elements of the said offence. The Supreme Court re-considered an extremely tragic case in which several people died as a result of a road accident caused by rapture of the drawbar of a trailer pulled by a truck. The trailer had been entered into service by a diagnostic technician, who was charged with and then found guilty of, among other things, entering a dangerous vehicle into service. The evidence collected in the case was not unambiguous as regards finding the defendant guilty of a deliberate fault. It was observed by the Supreme Court in its reasoning concerning the notions of so-called conscious unintentionality and deliberate fault, which had not been defined by the legislator, and therefore the offence under Art. 179 of the Penal Code was an example of an offence infringing the constitutional principle of definitiveness, which should prompt considering a legal inquiry to be addressed to the Constitutional Tribunal. Although important and interesting, the commented judgment has not been perceived by the glossers despite the fact that several years have already elapsed since its passing. It has remained topical, however.