They are looking for a double bottom in the Code of Administrative Offenses

The Constitutional Court (CC) will consider the appeal of Robert Chepurny from Saratov, who asks to check the Code of Administrative Offenses for compliance with the Basic Law. Mr. Chepurnoy insists that the current code allows punishment twice for the same violation. As follows from the complaint, which Kommersant got acquainted with, the driver was fined under one article of the Code of Administrative Offenses for not letting a pedestrian through, and was deprived of his rights under another article – for damage to health that was caused to a pedestrian as a result of an accident. These are two different elements of the offense, they can be applied simultaneously, lower courts and the Supreme Court decided earlier. Lawyers interviewed by Kommersant admit that such a problem of law enforcement does exist.

The Constitutional Court accepted for consideration the complaint of Robert Chepurny on a number of articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which, in his opinion, violate his constitutional rights. On September 30, 2020, in the city of Volsk (Saratov Region), Mr. Chepurnoy, driving a Lada Granta, hit a second-grader crossing the road. As a result, he broke his arm. The traffic police fined the driver for 1.5 thousand rubles. under Art. 12.18 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (failure to provide advantages in traffic to pedestrians), and the Volsky District Court, guided by Art. 12.24 (violation that caused minor or moderate harm to the health of the victim), deprived him of his driver’s license for a year and a half. During 2021, the driver tried to get his license back in the Saratov Regional Court, in the First Cassation and Supreme Courts, but this was not done anywhere.

Defending himself, Robert Chepurnoy pointed out that he should not be punished for the same violation twice, this contradicts paragraph 5 of Art. 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and Part 1 of Art. 50 of the Constitution (no one can be re-convicted for the same crime). The courts of the Saratov region pointed out: the legal basis of Art. 12.18 and 12.24 are “different”. The harm caused to a pedestrian as a result of non-compliance with traffic rules forms an independent offense, the First Cassation Court explained in its decision in July 2021.

Then Mr. Chepurnoy appealed to the Constitutional Court. In his complaint, he draws attention to the fact that in 2014 Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses prohibited the initiation of cases for a violation if a penalty order had already been issued for it. But in October 2014, the State Duma made a clarification to the code, which is still in force: the resolution for exemption from liability should not be made by any one, but under the same article or under the same part of the same article. In other words, if the driver was fined for exceeding the speed limit by 60 km/h under Part 4 of Art. 12.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, it is no longer possible to punish him for exceeding the speed limit by 40 km / h under part 3 of the same article. This clarification, according to Robert Chepurnoy, “significantly reduces the constitutional guarantees for the observance of the principle of double punishment for the same violation”, not allowing the courts to take into account the “factual circumstances of the case.” In fact, he writes, Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses allows punishing for the same violation twice, although this is prohibited by other rules.

The problem described in the complaint really exists, Sergei Radko, lawyer for the Freedom of Choice movement, explained to Kommersant. “Law enforcement often develops unfairly and illogically,” he says. “The driver is first punished, for example, for not providing an advantage to a pedestrian (driving at a traffic light, failing to keep a distance, etc.), imposing a fine under the relevant article of the Code of Administrative Offenses. And then, when the harm to health caused in that incident is revealed, a case (administrative or even criminal) is drawn up already for causing harm to health. In this case, the same violation of the same paragraph of the rules for which the driver has already been fined is charged with guilt. In fact, he is being punished a second time, which is exactly what the challenged norm does not rule out in the current version of the Code.” The previous wording of 2014 was more correct, “I think that there is logic in this complaint,” Mr. Radko believes.

A similar case was heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Then the driver in Yekaterinburg ran a red light at the intersection and made an accident with the victims. The traffic police fined him 1 thousand rubles. under Art. 12.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the court deprived of rights under Art. 12.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The driver gave almost the same arguments as Robert Chepurnoy, however, the Supreme Court referred to the already revised version of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses: if the articles of the code are different, then they can be applied simultaneously.

Ivan Buranov