What Article 385 of the Criminal Code punishes
Article 385 defines a road-safety offence distinct from drink-driving, drug-driving or reckless driving: it punishes anyone who creates a serious risk for road traffic by generating objective hazards on the road itself, without necessarily driving a vehicle. The provision describes two forms of conduct: placing unforeseeable obstacles on the road, spilling slippery or flammable substances, or altering, removing or disabling road signage by any means; and failing to restore the road's safety where there is a legal duty to do so, for example after carrying out roadworks or temporarily removing a sign.
This is an offence of concrete danger that protects the safety of all road users against risks created intentionally, and applies regardless of whether an accident actually occurs: it is enough that a serious, real risk to traffic is created.
Penalty
The penalty is six months to two years in prison, or a fine of twelve to twenty-four months plus community service of ten to forty days.
Common scenarios
This offence typically applies to someone who places heavy objects, cables, chains or other unforeseeable obstacles on a road or urban street as a prank, a protest or an act of vandalism; to someone who spills oil, paint or other slippery substances on the asphalt; to someone who removes, turns or disables traffic signs, traffic lights or beacons, leaving a junction or stretch of road without proper signage; and to companies or individuals who, after carrying out roadworks, remove fencing or safety signage without restoring proper conditions, creating a serious risk for drivers.
Defense strategy
The defense should first assess whether the risk created truly reached the "serious" threshold the offence requires, as opposed to less significant situations that might fall outside criminal law and instead amount to a traffic administrative offence. It is also relevant to examine the subjective element: whether the obstacle or the lack of signage resulted from intentional conduct or from excusable negligence within the usual standards of an authorised project or activity. In cases involving a failure to restore road safety, it is worth precisely identifying who held that legal duty at the time of the events, since in works involving several parties (contractor, subcontractor, public authority) attributing individual criminal responsibility requires a careful analysis of how contractual duties were allocated. This offence was substantially reshaped by the 2007 road-safety reform described below, which is worth reviewing for the exact legislative background of the current wording.