You can’t drive around the Constitutional Court on a tractor

Road workers from Zelenograd reached the Constitutional Court (CC), trying to cancel the traffic police fine of 100 thousand rubles. ZelAO Roads was charged with what police believe allowed a service tractor driver to drive around the city with an invalid license. The plaintiffs argue that they could not have known about the revocation of the driver’s license: to obtain such information, one would have to violate the law on personal data. The traffic police and the lower courts believe that the applicant had all the possibilities for verification. The result of these disputes was a complaint to the Constitutional Court, which will check the constitutionality of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

The complaint submitted to the Constitutional Court by the state budgetary institution (SBU) ZelAO Automobile Roads (engaged in the repair and maintenance of the district’s road network) concerns the incident on March 10, 2020. Then the traffic police officers stopped the tractor “Belarus”, which was driven by the driver of the State Budgetary Institution Valentin Kargin. After checking, it turned out that he was deprived of his rights. The traffic police fined the institution for 100 thousand rubles. for admission to the management of the driver’s equipment without documents (under Article 12.32 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). Lawyers of the road organization appealed the fine in several instances (from the Zelenograd District Court to the Supreme Court), but could not cancel the decision, after which they turned to the Constitutional Court.

From the complaint (“Kommersant” got acquainted with the text) and the published court decisions, it follows that Mr. Kargin was deprived of his driver’s license back in 2014 for drunk driving in the Voronezh region. He handed over the certificate to the traffic police, but he still had the rights of a tractor driver-driver (a document for managing municipal and other special equipment is issued by regional technical supervision bodies under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture). They also had to be handed over, but Valentin Kargin did not know about this obligation (as he said at one of the court hearings). The driver presented these rights when applying for a job at the State Budget Institution in 2017, and he also showed them to the traffic police officers who stopped him for checks in April 2020.

The dispute between the State Budgetary Institution and the traffic police revolved around whether the institution could, in principle, check the validity of Valentin Kargin’s driver’s license. The traffic police website has a service for checking certificates, but there is no data on the rights of tractor drivers. The road workers requested the technical supervision of the Voronezh region to check the rights of Mr. Kargin, but were refused with reference to the prohibition to disclose the driver’s personal data without his consent. The GBU could obtain such consent, according to the traffic police and the courts. The driver may not give it, the institution’s lawyers say, and against his will it is forbidden to force him to disclose data.

In fact, the SBU notes in its complaint, in order to comply with the norms of one law, the institution would have to violate the norms of another, which is contrary to the Constitution. Not to hire Valentin Kargin on the basis of refusal to disclose personal data related to the validity of his driver’s license, the GBU also could not – this is contrary to the Labor Code and the same Constitution. In this regard, the institution asks the Constitutional Court to recognize Art. 12.32 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and Part 2 of Art. 2.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which describes the mechanism for holding a legal entity liable.

The GBU took all measures to “prevent violations,” but the driver hid the fact of deprivation from the employer, Kommersant was told at the institution: the certificate was authentic, of the established form, the validity period had not expired. “There are similar cases in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, in which the court recognized such measures (on verification of rights.— “b”) sufficient and came to the conclusion that in such cases there is no corpus delicti,” the institution said. “But, since in this case the Supreme Court refused us, it was decided to apply to the Constitutional Court.” In 2020, in the practice of the State Budgetary Institution, there was a similar case when the traffic police found a driver of an official ZIL without a license and fined the organization. Lawyers also appealed to the courts, but could not cancel the decision.

“The employer really did not check the fact of the absence of deprivation, and his references to the fact that he did not have such an opportunity are unconvincing,” believes Sergei Radko, a lawyer for the “Freedom of Choice” movement. driving, and must be sure that the employee has these skills and documents.

Ivan Buranov