Description of the facts and proceedings
Guilty M.M. has been accused of violating Article 97 of the Law in Article 47(1)(2) – Road traffic law (i.e. Dz.U. of 2024 item 1251; hereinafter: PrDrog). According to the findings, he drove his vehicle into a pedestrian road (a stepper), leaving no passage width of 1.5 metres.
The Gdańsk-North territory Court judgement of 17.5.2024, II In 1883/23, acquitted the accused, arguing that since the full width of the sidewalk at the scene was not little than 1.5 metres, parking was correct. The judgement was finalized on 19.6.2024 without appeal. The cassation was brought against the suspect by the lawyer General.
Position of the ultimate Court
The ultimate Court held that the judgement under appeal had been brought in gross violation of substantive law, since the territory Court had omitted the amendment of PrDrog rules, which entered into force on 21.9.2022. According to the current wording of Article 47(1)(2) PrDrog, a pedestrian halt (as a whole) is permitted, provided that the width of the pavement (as a part separated exclusively for pedestrians) at their disposal is not little than 1,5 m and this will not impede movement.
The SN stressed that the notions of ‘a pedestrian’ and ‘a pedestrian’ are not synonymous. The walker since 21.9.2022 is intended exclusively for pedestrians, and the halt of the vehicle on the pedestrian road after 21.9.2022 is allowed in fact only on the alleged buffer belt – in accordance with § 27(4) of the Regulation of 24.6.2022 on method and construction provisions (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 1518). In accordance with the fresh regulations, on pedestrian roads – resulting from the transformation of existing pavements, in peculiar where there is no clear demarcation between the pavement and the buffer belt – after parking the car, for the sole disposal of pedestrians, the free area should be left not little than 1.5 metres.
In addition, the request to leave 1.5 m of free space must be assessed by the prism of the strength of traffic – at a advanced strength it may be required to leave even more width to avoid hindering traffic.
Conclusions for practice
It is worth recalling that erstwhile the amendment came into force (September 2022), there were various interpretations in the media about the anticipation of parking on pavements. At the time, the Ministry of Infrastructure calmed drivers in authoritative communications, claiming that the fresh definitions were of a method nature and that "parking rules stay unchanged". The hotel argued that as long as the statutory 1.5 metre crossing is preserved, drivers do not should be afraid of tickets.
However, the ruling under review concludes this liberal interpretation. The Court of First Instance made it clear that the change in the nomenclature – replacing the word ‘stairway’ in the parking regulations with the word ‘pedestry road’ – while defining the pavement as intended only for pedestrians, was a deliberate act of the legislature. It is essential to separate between the different elements of the pedestrian route: pavement, buffer zone and service belt.
The explanation of SN is as follows:
- Buffer belt primate — Pedestrian parking is mostly only possible in the buffer lane. If the infrastructure is clearly isolated (e.g. by a different colour or kind of surface, interior curb or green belt), the driver must stick closely to the designated zone.
- Prohibition of ‘output’ on the pavement – where the buffer belt is narrower than the width of the vehicle, there is no legal anticipation of parking specified a vehicle. Even if there would have been much more than a statutory five-foot [1.5 m] left after the invasion of the adjacent pedestrian walkway, specified a halt is illegal. This is due to the fact that any part of a vehicle outside the buffer belt violates the pavement zone, which by definition is intended only to walk.
- Presumption of pavement in non-uniform areas – in actual states where there is no clear demarcation between the pavement and the buffer belt (the full pedestrian road is uniform), the full free space left for pedestrians must necessarily meet the request of a minimum of 1.5 m.
Judgment of the ultimate Court of 20 August 2025, V KK 401/24, Legalis
