Exemption from administrative responsibility. Term of administrative responsibility

Administrative and criminal liability - the most severe legal consequences for violators. However, in essence, the administrative responsibility is such that often there is a situation when the act of a citizen, containing the features of an offense, nevertheless does not carry a great public danger.

Grounds for exemption from liability

The absence of negative consequences for the offender in practice is connected with two situations: when it is a question of excluding such a phenomenon as administrative and legal responsibility in the presence of all signs of misconduct; Or when the offense is found to be committed, but the perpetrator is not subject to prosecution. The Code of Administrative Offenses provides the following grounds for exemption from administrative liability: insignificance, replacement by another punishment, insanity, and others.

Relaxation is connected, in particular, with the fact that the state apparatus needs to economize the means of coercion. The main task of the law enforcement body is to correctly take into account the content of the objective and subjective aspects of the offense, identifying mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Insignificance

The Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses gives the right to the court, body, official who make a decision on the appointment of an administrative penalty, with certain characteristics, to recognize the committed act as insignificant. I must say, the reference to insignificance existed even in the times of the USSR, in the former Code, but so far the legislator has not given an exact definition of this term, did not clarify what the evaluation criteria are, but only delegated this duty to the law enforcer.

For officials, in most cases, the Supreme Court's opinion is authoritative. According to the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Council of March 24, 2005, No. 5, an insignificant administrative offense can be considered an act, character, amount of harm and the severity of its consequences are not a big threat to the normal functioning of public relations. This does not take into account the personal motives and property status of the perpetrator. In this case, the court, acting as the ultimate authority, has the right to subject the decision of another body to a change, recognizing the decision as illegal and repealing it.

Thus, the law does not have a precise concept of insignificance, which, on the one hand, allows an authorized person to be more democratic, on the other hand, creates a field for abuses that entail exemption from administrative responsibility in unacceptable circumstances.

Replacement of punishment

In the event that there is exemption from administrative responsibility on grounds of insignificance, an offense is applied to the offender, which refers to the response measures. An oral observation informs the inadmissibility of such behavior in the future. It has no written expression and can be rendered at any stage of administrative proceedings. Also, the replacement is made in cases when it is a question of the military (the serviceman is being brought to disciplinary responsibility), minors, usually the case is with misdemeanors committed for the first time.

The novelty introduced into the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses is the latest amendments concerning the easing of punishments for small and medium-sized businesses for violations found during state inspections - instead of a fine, a caution tool is a warning.

Exemption from punishment of minors

Administrative legal responsibility of minors is a special case. It is worth noting that persons from 16 to 18 already act as subjects of administrative responsibility. The court can come to a conclusion about the replacement of punishment with an oral reprimand, based on data on the personal qualities of the offender. This decision is also made by the commission on the affairs of minors, and the list of applicable measures is also regulated by the Federal Law on the Prevention of Neglect and the Offense of Minors. For example, the commission may demand a public apology, a warning, public censure and transfer the child under home supervision.

Expiration of statute of limitations

The term of administrative responsibility can also affect the appointment of punishment, which is partly taken from the norms of criminal law. Art. 4.5 specifies such terms for bringing to responsibility as three months, a year from the date of committing an administrative offense - in violation of the legislation on territorial seas, the exclusive economic zone of the state, the protection of investors' interests in the securities market, the norms of customs, currency, tax and other legislation.

The reason for this "omission" lies in the fact that, unlike criminal law, the administrative does not recognize the principle of the inevitability of punishment for a committed misconduct.

If the offense is of a lengthy nature, the timeframe is calculated from the moment of detection. The Supreme Arbitration Court, at the time of its existence, pointed out that, when checking the limitation period, it must be remembered that the day of revealing the wrongful act is also the day of commission. In this case, one should proceed from the circumstances and signs of the objective side. It should also be taken into account that the statute of limitations, according to the current legislation, has only one reason to suspend - a petition of a person to review the case at his place of residence.

Some scholars still believe that the statute of limitations can not be regarded as a condition, compliance with which entails exemption from administrative responsibility, since such a mechanism is more connected with ensuring the effectiveness of the work of the administrative and jurisdictional apparatus.

Special types of grounds for exemption from liability

Special cases of grounds for liberation can be attributed to cases of involvement of certain groups of subjects (for example, servicemen or minors), and the composition of the Special Part, in which the clearing algorithm is directly prescribed.

Servicemen and citizens called up for military training may not be brought to administrative responsibility if part of the disciplinary act is functioning.

For example, Art. 15.11 contains provisions on liability for violation of accounting and reporting, where part two allows for exemption from liability in the event that the violators reimburse the lack of paid taxes, correct the corresponding deficiencies and errors in the tax return. Art. 2.6.1. Is designed to release the owner of the vehicle from liability in situations where the car was not controlled by him (by proxy, as a result of the theft). Art. 14.32 provides for exemption for the person who first met all conditions.

Differences between the concepts of "exemption from administrative responsibility" and "exclusion of administrative responsibility"

Administrative legislation is built in such a way that some jurists combine circumstances that exempt from administrative responsibility, with circumstances that exclude it, thus treating the extreme need and insanity in the general list. However, this is certainly two different legal institutions, since the first case does not exclude the harmfulness of the act to society (as opposed to extreme necessity), the actions of the person are recognized as lawful and not intentional.

The problems of functioning of the institute of liberation from liability

Most of all legal problems are related to norms that are estimated. The absence of signs of insignificance enables the administrative body to independently assess the circumstances, which has negative consequences and creates a disagreement in practice.

It also seems extremely wrong that the procedure for the release from criminal liability of a person who did not manage transport at the time of fixing the offense seems to be, since it is rather a question of the absence of the composition as such - an improper subject of the act.

The practice of applying the rules on exemption from liability

When considering the question of insignificance, it is necessary to know whether there are offenses against which it is not possible to apply the norm. Indeed, the Supreme Court in Resolution No. 18 of October 24, 2006 made it clear that it is impossible to use the rule of insignificance in cases where the case relates to drinking alcohol when driving a vehicle, since the car is a source of increased danger. The court takes into account the potential harm to public relations, regardless of the harm done.

At the same time, there are frequent discrepancies: for example, in one case the court did not consider the non-use of cash register equipment as a single violation as a threat to public order, referring to the fact that the seller who sold it worked the first day and had a good description. In another case, the court considered that there was a threat to public relations in the act, despite the fact that the amount by which the goods were released was insignificant. Sometimes during the judicial investigation it turns out that the offense is causing more serious harm than indicated in the article of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in that case it becomes impossible to punish the offender administratively. Criminal responsibility, most likely, will give an opportunity to qualify what was done as a component of a crime.

All this allows us to conclude that law enforcement, one way or another, requires a more precise explanation of the criteria for exemption from administrative liability.