Absence: is it mandatory for car owners to come to the MREO in person
The presence of the car owner in the registration department of the State Traffic Inspectorate is optional: his representatives can register the car by proxy. This decision was made by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
She didn't come by herself
In Yekaterinburg, in 2023, the owner of KAMAZ, Ivanova (last name changed. — Izvestia) I applied for registration of this truck through the Gosuslugi portal. However, on the appointed day, it was not she who came to the registration and examination department of the State Traffic Inspectorate (MREO), but her representatives, who had a notarized power of attorney with the authority to represent Ivanova's interests in the bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Traffic Inspectorate, including submitting on her behalf the documents necessary to carry out registration actions with the car, to participate in its inspection., receive the necessary documents , etc . However, the MREO staff refused to register the car, referring to the fact that since the applicant himself did not come to the registration department of the State Traffic Inspectorate, they were unable to establish his identity.
Ivanova did not agree with this decision of the traffic police, noting that it "deprives her of the opportunity to fulfill the legally established obligation to make changes to the vehicle registration data in connection with the change of owner, posing a threat of administrative liability," and appealed it to the Yekaterinburg City Court. However, the complaint was dismissed. Later, as part of the appeal, the judicial Board for administrative cases of the Sverdlovsk Regional sided with Ivanova, but later the Seventh Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction again recognized the actions of the MREO employees as legitimate. As a result, the owner of the truck had to file a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The court and the case
After reviewing the case materials, the Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation concluded that the lower authorities "committed significant violations of substantive law." The Court noted that the grounds for registration or refusal of registration actions are specified in the law "On State Registration of Vehicles".
"Article 15 of the law <...> establishes that an official of a registration unit has the right to require a person who applied to perform registration actions to submit <...>..> a document certifying the identity of an individual who is the owner of the vehicle, and in the case of a request from a representative of the vehicle owner, also a document certifying <...> and a document confirming his authority. A document certifying the identity of the vehicle owner is not submitted if the powers of the vehicle owner's representative are based on a notarized power of attorney (paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of the specified article)," the Supreme Court ruling says.
Similar requirements are provided for in the administrative regulations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on the provision of public services for vehicle registration, the court stressed. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted that neither the law "On Vehicle Registration" nor the relevant regulations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs provide for the participation of the same individual (only the owner of the vehicle or only his representative) at all stages of obtaining public services, starting with the submission of an application.
"The applicant's personal participation does not deprive him of the right to have a representative, just as the participation of a representative does not deprive the applicant of the right to personal participation in legal relations for obtaining public services," the members of the Judicial Board for Administrative Affairs of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation emphasized.
As a result, the Supreme Court granted Ivanova's complaint, overturning the ruling of the Seventh Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction and upholding the ruling of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, which initially sided with the truck owner.
According to the letter of the law
Lawyers and experts interviewed by Izvestia believe that the Supreme Court has made a reasoned and balanced decision. According to Sergey Radko, a lawyer for the Freedom of Choice movement, the reason for the lawsuit could be that the MREO staff initially did not figure out in which cases confirmation of the principal's identity was required during registration and in which cases it was not.
— According to the law, if a power of attorney is presented in a simple written form, a passport of the citizen on whose behalf it was issued is required. If, as in this case, we are talking about a notarized power of attorney, then it is not necessary to confirm the identity of the person transferring certain powers to another citizen.: this has already been done by a notary," Sergei Radko explained.
However, he did not rule out the possibility that the MREO staff had some doubts or difficulties in confirming the status of the notary who certified this power of attorney.
— In any case, the Supreme Court has made a decision consistent with the letter of the law. Since a notarized power of attorney was presented and there were no claims to other documents, the MREO had no right to refuse to perform registration actions," the lawyer noted.
Igor Morzharetto, a member of the Presidium of the Public Council under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, shares a similar point of view.
"If the judges had initially studied the case materials a little more carefully, it is likely that the issue would have been resolved at the level of the very first instance and the situation would not have had to be brought to the intervention of the Supreme Court," he said in an interview with Izvestia.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
