Exonerative and Non-Exonerative Grounds for Administrative Offense Case Dismissal

In the paper, the author proposes to divide all the circumstances entailing the termination of proceedings in a case of an administrative offense into three groups. The first unites grounds that should be regarded as irremediable procedural obstacles and in the presence of which this particular proceeding is impossible due to procedural obstacles, but at the same time, the issue of the offender’s responsibility can be resolved in another case. In the second group, the author proposes to include grounds resulting in impossibility of holding a person liable due to the lack of cause. The dismissal of the proceedings under these circumstances makes reopening of the case impossible; at the same time the innocence of the person is considered established. The third group includes grounds in the presence of which the offender, whose guilt is established, is released from the obligation to undergo punishment, while the conclusion about the illegality of his actions remains valid.

The author believes that the lack of legislative regulation of this issue generates legal disputes and may negatively affect the effectiveness of the protection of the rights of persons against whom a case on administrative liability has been unreasonably initiated.

1. Andrichenko LV, Bogolyubov SA, Bondar NS, et al. Commentary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article-by-Article). Zorkin VD, editor. 2nd ed., rev. Moscow: Norma, Infra-M Publ.; 2011. (In Russ.).

2. Gavrilyuk RV. Vindication in the Russian Criminal Procedure (Issues of Theory and Practice). Cand. Diss. (Law). N. Novgorod; 2008. (In Russ.).

3. Kuznetsova AD. Features of Vindication in Criminal Proceedings of the Russian Federation when Considering Cases in First Instance Courts. Cand. Diss. (Law). Ekaterinburg; 2022. (In Russ.).

4. Lumpov EA. Differentiation of Administrative and Disciplinary Liability of Military Personnel. Voennoe pravo: elektronnoe nauchnoe izdanie. 2014;4. (In Russ.).

5. Markelova AA. On the Issue of Compensation for Damage Caused by Erroneous Administrative Coercion. Commentary on the Ruling of the Judicial Board for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 18, 2018 No. 305-ES17-21628 in the context of the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 15, 2020 No. 36-P. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. 2021;2:5-33. (In Russ.).

6. Martynov AV. Agnosticism of Administrative Liability: To the Anniversary of Doctor of Law, Professor Yu.P. Solovya. Administrativnoe pravo i protsess [Administrative Law and Procedure]. 2018;7:47-53. (In Russ.).

7. Mochegaev NP. Reimbursement of Expenses for the Remuneration of a Lawyer or other Person who Participated in the Proceedings on an Administrative Offense as a Defender, and Recovery of Compensation for Moral Damage. Advokatskaya praktika [Advocate’s Practice]. 2016;2:36-41. (In Russ.).

8. Morozova NA. A State of Administrative Punishment. Lex russica. 2021;74(9):44-53. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17803/1729-5920.2021.178.9.044-053

9. Serkov PP. Administrative Liability in Russian Law: Modern Understanding and New Approaches. A monograph. Moscow: Norma, Infra-M Publ.; 2012. (In Russ.).

10. Sultanov AR. What Should be the Legal Consequences of the Expiry of the Limitation Period for Bringing to Liability for Committing a Tax Offense. Advokat. 2016;3:5-12. (In Russ.).

11. Tolkunov VM, Kurova IN. On the Current Practice of Application of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. Arbitrazhnye spory. 2020;4:15-28. (In Russ.).

12. Yashina AA. Constitutional and Legal Foundations of Vindication in the Russian Federation. Abstract Cand. Diss. (Law). Penza; 2016. (In Russ.).

13. Zhdanov NM, Zhdanova AN. Exemption from Administrative Liability. Administrativnoe pravo i protsess [Administrative Law and Procedure]. 2012;4:61-65. (In Russ.).