The Commission on Legislative Activities sorted amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses by usefulness
[ad_1]
The Government Commission on Legislative Activities on Monday approved a package of responses to the initiatives of deputies, senators and regional legislative assemblies. Taking into account the finalization, United Russia’s amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO) on liability for leakage of personal data and the proposal of LDPR leader Leonid Slutsky on sanctions for the repeated sale of tobacco products to minors were supported. At the same time, the idea of the Tuvan parliament to strengthen liability for violating the rules on the sale of alcohol was criticized for the lack of a systematic approach.
The bill of Leonid Slutsky, who proposed to establish in the Code of Administrative Offenses liability for the repeated sale of tobacco products and devices for its consumption to a minor, was supported subject to revision. The commission liked the idea itself – “taking into account the state policy of countering the consumption of tobacco and other nicotine-containing products implemented in the Russian Federation.” The government considered the lack of statistical information and materials of law enforcement practice in the explanatory note to be a drawback of the project. At the same time, the commission recalled that repeated retail sale of alcohol to minors entails criminal liability under Art. 151.1 CC.
The right commission also had comments on the amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses of a group of United Russia deputies and senators on liability for violation of personal data, already adopted in the first reading on January 23. This project multiplies fines for personal data leaks, while introducing differentiation based on the volume of data. So, if the leak affects from 1 thousand to 10 thousand entities, the fine for legal entities will be from 3 million to 5 million rubles, from 10 thousand to 100 thousand entities – from 5 million to 10 million, for more than 100 thousand – from 10 million to 15 million rubles. For repeated leaks, citizens will have to pay from 400 thousand to 600 thousand rubles, officials – from 2 million to 4 million rubles, and for legal entities a turnover fine is already provided – from 0.1% to 3% of revenue for the calendar year. year or for part of the current year, but not less than 15 million and not more than 500 million rubles. According to current legislation, the maximum fine for legal entities is up to 100 thousand rubles, and in case of repeated violation – up to 300 thousand rubles.
The Legal Commission had already reviewed the bill before it was submitted to the Duma and supported it, taking into account the revisions, but now in its review it stated that not all of its comments were taken into account. “The projected amounts of fines need to be clarified in terms of proportionality and the possibility of execution of such punishment by persons held accountable, which is necessary to achieve the goals of administrative punishment,” the review says. In addition, the government proposes to mitigate liability if the operator financially compensated for the alleged harm, and also financed measures to ensure the information security of personal data within three years before the offense. Finally, it is proposed to supplement the document with a provision on liability for violation of requirements in the field of processing biometric personal data.
But the commission gave a negative response to the draft of the Supreme Khural (parliament) of Tuva, which proposed strengthening liability in the Code of Administrative Offenses for violating the rules for the sale of alcoholic beverages. The government noted that “increasing the size of sanctions in isolation from a systematic approach to solving emerging problems cannot be considered as an effective measure to curb the growth in the number of administrative offenses.”
The government commission also did not support the bill of the Moscow Regional Duma on supplementing Art. 7.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (“Destruction or damage to someone else’s property”) is a rule on liability for unauthorized application of graffiti on someone else’s property. As noted in the review, the authors of the project did not take into account that the application of inscriptions that caused damage in the amount of up to 5 thousand rubles is already qualified under this article, and if the damage is even more extensive, then such an act can be qualified under Art. 167 of the Criminal Code “Deliberate destruction or damage to someone else’s property.” Thus, the emergence of a new norm “could lead to a weakening of the property protection mechanism,” the government believes. In addition, the rules for landscaping the territory are established by municipal and regional legal acts, which may also provide for liability for unauthorized graffiti.
Finally, the commission rejected two bills from the Bryansk Regional Duma relating to electoral and legislative procedures. In the first of them, Bryansk deputies proposed limiting the circle of persons who can be members of election commissions with the right of advisory vote, excluding from it candidates, their authorized representatives and proxies of electoral associations that nominated candidates. The commission in its response recalls that, by law, members of election commissions with the right of advisory vote do not have the right to draw up a protocol on the voting results, that is, “they do not have the opportunity to influence the activities of the commissions and the decisions they make.” And an absolute ban has already been established for proxies to be members of commissions with the right of advisory vote, whereas, in accordance with the proposal of the Bryansk Regional Duma, they cannot be given this status only in the relevant elections. Also, the draft does not propose regulation in relation to cases when several election campaigns are held in a territory and the same citizen, for example, is appointed as a member of a commission with the right of advisory vote to a regional election commission, while he himself is running for the position of head of a municipality.
Another proposal from the Bryansk Regional Duma, rejected by the commission, concerned the rules for drawing up bills submitted to the State Duma by the legislative bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The authors proposed to be guided in this matter not by the regulations of the Duma, but by the regulations of the regional parliaments themselves. According to the explanatory note, this would make it possible to eliminate the requirement that a regional deputy, sending his project to the legislative assembly for subsequent submission to the Duma, is obliged to obtain an opinion from the government of the Russian Federation on it (if the initiative involves expenses from the federal budget) or its official review (if it is we are talking about amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offenses). However, the government commission noted that the legislative assembly itself has the right to apply to the government for such conclusions or reviews, and the procedure for initiating such requests “can be regulated by acts of the said legislative body.”
[ad_2]
Source link