Work on mistakes: the government has prepared new amendments to the Administrative Code
Errors and inaccuracies in protocols and other documents on administrative offenses, including those related to traffic violations, will not be grounds for termination of the proceedings. The relevant amendments to the Administrative Code were submitted to the State Duma by the Government of the Russian Federation. Lawyers and experts have mixed opinions about this initiative. The details are in the Izvestia article.
Amendments for amendments
The government submitted amendments to the Administrative Code to the State Duma for consideration, which provided for the possibility for the court to return protocols and other documents on an administrative offense drawn up with errors or inaccuracies to the official who issued them in order to eliminate the shortcomings. The relevant draft law has been published in the legislative support system of the Parliament.
The amendments to Article 29.9 of the Administrative Code, in addition to the currently existing resolutions on the imposition of administrative punishment and termination of proceedings on an administrative offense, introduce a new type of court document — "a ruling on the return of the protocol on an administrative offense and other case materials to the body whose official drew up the protocol <...>, in the case of the protocol <...> unauthorized persons, incorrect drawing up of the protocol and registration of other case materials, or incompleteness of the submitted materials, which cannot be made up during the consideration of the case."
This bill was developed at the request of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which last fall recognized a number of norms of the Administrative Code contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In particular, if, during the examination of the case, the judge finds that the protocol does not contain the signature of an official or has errors and inaccuracies, the law obliges him to terminate the proceedings in this case for lack of evidence of an offense. Thus, because of this, violators could avoid liability on a formal basis.
In addition to the absence of an official's signature, the shortcomings, according to the accompanying documents to the draft law, are also the absence in the protocol of the date and time of its compilation; the signature of the person against whom the case of an offense was initiated, or a record of his refusal to sign the protocol; errors in the name of such person; failure to indicate in the protocol witnesses of the offense.
"These shortcomings cannot always be eliminated by summoning a judge, an authority, an official considering an administrative offense case, an employee of the state body that initiated it, or another person. The draft law introduces the right of a judge or other subject of administrative jurisdiction to make a ruling on the return of the materials of an administrative offense case for revision in connection with the identified shortcomings," the explanatory note to the amendments says.
According to the draft law, identified errors and shortcomings must be eliminated by a government agency or official within three days from the date of receipt of a protocol with deficiencies from the court.
Accusatory bias
It will be quite difficult to meet these deadlines, says Sergey Radko, a lawyer for the Freedom of Choice movement. Indeed, according to the law, the violator must be notified in advance that changes will be made to the administrative materials related to him, he stressed.
"The person involved may not be present when these changes or additions are made, but he must be notified of this within a reasonable time," the lawyer noted. He also did not rule out that additional time to correct errors in the protocol could eventually lead to violations of the established time limits for claims in administrative cases.
According to the lawyer, the bill does eliminate a gap that often allows traffic violators to avoid liability on a formal basis. But the initiative itself is clearly accusatory, he stressed.
— These amendments provide an opportunity for Traffic police officers to correct their mistakes. At the same time, the violator does not have the opportunity to "rewind the film" and drive according to the rules," Sergei Radko told Izvestia.
Inaccuracy inaccuracy discord
The proposed amendments to the Administrative Code are a "double—edged sword," says Igor Morzharetto, a member of the presidium of the Public Council under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. On the one hand, they will not allow reckless drivers to avoid responsibility for traffic violations on formal grounds, on the other hand, the possibility of making changes to protocols can potentially lead to abuse, he believes.
— A traffic inspector is a living person, he can also make a mistake or inaccuracy, forget to put a signature in one of the many places in the protocol where it is necessary. But it's one thing to correct the letter in the driver's last name or the number in the license plate of the car he was driving, and it's quite another to indicate other details of the violator or his car. If the first is really a correction of an error or inaccuracy, then the second is already a forgery," Igor Morzharetto told Izvestia.
In order to avoid possible abuses when making corrections to protocols, the law must clearly specify which changes and in which cases are allowed to be made in these documents, he is sure.
Mistakes must be answered for.
Valery Soldunov, a member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation and chairman of the All-Russian Society of Motorists, also believes that in order to avoid "distortions" when correcting protocols and other documents related to an offense, this procedure should be as transparent as possible and carefully monitored by the supervisory authorities. At the same time, he believes that it is necessary to deal primarily with the causes of deficiencies in the protocols, and not with their consequences.
— It is important to improve the quality of the issued administrative materials. This includes responsibility, and even disciplinary responsibility, for officials who draw up protocols and other documents. A person should understand that if the paper he has drawn up returns from the court for any amendments, he will face some kind of punishment. In this case, he will be more attentive to filling out the necessary documents," Valery Soldunov told Izvestia.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
