Client Avoids 5-Year Driving Ban and UAH 40,000 Fine

Introduction

On May 25, 2024, the Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv dismissed case No. 753/5280/24 involving administrative charges against a Nigerian national. Our client was facing a 5 to 7-year driving ban, a UAH 40,000 fine, and vehicle confiscation for driving without a license as a repeat offender. Attorney Dmytro Chuguienko demonstrated that patrol police had drafted the citation without providing an interpreter, even though the defendant spoke only English and couldn't understand what was happening. Officers tried translating on their own using basic words—all captured on body camera footage. The court found serious procedural violations, ruled the citation inadmissible as evidence, and dismissed the case for lack of proof.

Background

The traffic stop happened one evening on a Kyiv street. Patrol officers ran a check and discovered the driver had a prior offense for operating a vehicle without a valid license. A second violation meant harsh penalties under Part Five of Article 126 of Ukraine's Code of Administrative Offenses.

When officers approached, the Nigerian driver tried explaining himself in English. The officers didn't speak English well enough and resorted to repeating simple words over and over.

The body camera footage shows one officer attempting to play interpreter, despite knowing only about a dozen basic English words.

The defendant had no idea what was actually happening during these procedures.

Police wrote up the citation entirely in Ukrainian. Nowhere did it mention whether the defendant spoke Ukrainian or needed an interpreter.

No interpreter was called to the scene. The paperwork claimed the Nigerian citizen had been "informed of his rights and obligations" under Article 63 of Ukraine's Constitution and Article 268 of the Administrative Code. But here's the obvious question: how do you explain someone's rights in a language they don't speak?

Defense Strategy

After reviewing the evidence, our attorney filed a motion to dismiss under Article 247 of the Administrative Code. The argument was straightforward but powerful: patrol police had seriously breached the legal procedure for charging someone with an administrative offense by failing to ensure this foreign national could understand what was going on.

Article 268 of the Administrative Code clearly states that anyone has the right to use their native language and access interpreter services if they don't speak the language of the proceedings. This isn't just red tape—it's a fundamental protection of the right to defend yourself. The government must make this right actually work.

Article 274 requires that an interpreter be appointed by the official handling the case. That interpreter must show up when called and provide complete, accurate translation. Police regulations spell it out too: if someone doesn't speak Ukrainian, you need a qualified interpreter present when drafting the citation—someone with proper credentials who's been warned about the penalties for mistranslation.

Our position was clear: a police officer can't be both the accuser and the interpreter. That's an obvious conflict of interest that makes fair proceedings impossible.

Article 274 doesn't allow the prosecution to do the translating for the person they're charging. The case file contained zero documentation about this officer's education or English skills.

The European Convention on Human Rights treats the right to interpretation as inseparable from the right to a defense. The European Court of Human Rights made this crystal clear in Shabelnik v. Ukraine (February 19, 2009): anyone who doesn't understand the language being used has the right to free interpreter assistance—both written and spoken—for everything they need to follow what's happening and protect their rights.

Our motion argued that without an interpreter, the Nigerian defendant couldn't properly review the citation, give his side of the story, raise objections, or exercise any of his legal rights under Article 268. According to Article 251, a citation serves as evidence in administrative cases. When a citation is drafted with these kinds of violations, it's inadmissible as evidence. And without valid evidence, there's no provable offense.

Court Ruling

The Darnytskyi District Court reviewed the body camera footage, which confirmed the critical facts: the Nigerian defendant spoke only English during the citation process, no interpreter was present, and he clearly didn't understand what was going on.

The court found serious violations of Articles 268 and 274 of the Administrative Code. The citation said nothing about whether the defendant spoke Ukrainian or needed an interpreter. The officer's improvised translation didn't meet legal requirements because Article 274 doesn't authorize prosecutors to moonlight as interpreters.

The court cited the European Court's Shabelnik v. Ukraine decision, emphasizing that interpreter access is fundamental to the right of defense. It also invoked Part 3 of Article 62 of Ukraine's Constitution: you can't base charges on illegally obtained evidence, and any doubt about guilt must favor the accused.

Since the citation violated procedural protections, the court ruled it inadmissible. Without valid evidence, the court concluded the prosecution hadn't proven the Nigerian defendant committed any offense.

Takeaway

This case proves that procedural rights aren't negotiable. The Darnytskyi District Court dismissed the charges after finding a critical flaw: police drafted a citation without an interpreter for someone who doesn't speak Ukrainian.

This decision sets a clear standard for law enforcement: when you're dealing with a foreign national who doesn't speak the official language, skipping the interpreter automatically invalidates everything that follows—regardless of what actually happened. Human rights can't take a back seat to convenience or officers not knowing the rules.