Commentary to article 27. Committing an administrative offense by negligence  The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences  

     An administrative offense is considered to have been committed negligently if the individual who committed it foresaw the possibility of harmful consequences of his action (inaction), but without sufficient grounds thoughtlessly counted on their prevention or did not foresee the possibility of such consequences, although with due care and foresight he should have and could have foreseen them.

     The commented article reveals the concept of a careless form of guilt when committing an administrative offense by an individual.

     An administrative offense is considered to have been committed negligently if the person who committed it foresaw the possibility of harmful consequences of his action (inaction), but without sufficient grounds arrogantly expected to prevent such consequences or did not foresee the possibility of such consequences, although he should have and could have foreseen them. In the first case, carelessness manifests itself in the form of frivolity (arrogance), since the person foresaw the possibility of harmful consequences, but arrogantly hoped to prevent them.; in the second case, in the form of negligence.  

     For example, the case when a driver drove up to an intersection at high speed, hoping to be able to stop the car at a traffic light, but failed to do so and drove into the intersection at a red light, is a typical example of a reckless offense committed out of recklessness (arrogance). Another example is that a driver, distracted from the road, ran a red light (although he did not foresee the possibility of such a situation, because he did not know the road section, did not know that a traffic light was installed there), but he committed a reckless offense in the form of negligence. The driver should have and could have foreseen the harmful consequences of his inattention and had no right to dull his attention.

     If intent is characterized as premeditation of actions, then carelessness should be characterized as a lack of due care, prudence, and in some cases a manifestation of carelessness, laziness, indiscipline of certain categories of persons, their disregard for the requirements imposed on them in connection with the performance of their professional and other duties and functions, etc.

     Negligent guilt must be distinguished from innocent harm, the so-called incident, or a case in which the administrative responsibility of a person does not occur.  

     In such cases, the person either should not have or could not have foreseen the socially dangerous, harmful consequences of his action or omission, or was unable to control his behavior due to extraordinary circumstances. The innocent infliction of harm - a "case" - sometimes has to be encountered when considering cases of administrative offenses in transport.  

     Thus, from the practice of finding out the reasons for drivers running red traffic lights and committing corresponding traffic accidents, there are cases when drivers who had not previously suspected their illness suddenly had a heart attack before the intersection, leg cramps appeared, they lost consciousness, etc., and drivers were unable to drive a vehicle.

     Determining the negligent form of guilt in the commission of an administrative offense is of great practical importance, since the commission of acts of negligence may serve as a basis for imposing a less severe punishment within the limits provided for in the relevant article of the Code (paragraph 8) of Part 1 of Article 56 of the Administrative Code).

Scientific and practical commentary to the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences (article-by-article) from the Author's team:

     Bachurin Sergey Nikolaevich, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – chapter 48 (co-authored with E.M. Khakimov);

     Gabdualiev Mereke Trekovich, Candidate of Law – Chapters 11, 21, 22, 23;

     Zhusipbekova Ainur Maratovna, M.yu.n. – chapter 13 (co-authored with Karpekin A.V.); chapters 33, 39 (co-authored with Seitzhanov O.T.);  

     Karpekin Alexander Vladimirovich, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – chapter 13 (in collaboration with Zhusipbekova A.M.);

     Korneychuk Sergey Vasilyevich – chapters 2; chapter 6 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov, E.M. Khakimov); chapter 8; chapter 25 (co-authored with E.M. Khakimov); articles 457-470, 488, 488-1, 491-506; chapters 28, 30, 52;

     Ilya Petrovich Koryakin, Doctor of Law, Professor – Chapter 49;

     Kisykova Gulnara Bauyrzhanovna, Candidate of Law – chapter 20;

     Omarova Botagoz Akimgereevna, Candidate of Law – chapters 17; chapter 18 (co-authored with B.A. Parmankulova); chapters 26, 31; chapter 32 (co-authored with B.A. Parmankulova);

     Parmankulova Bayan Askhanbaevna – chapter 18 (co-authored with Omarova B.A.); chapters 19, 32 (co-authored with Omarova B.A.); chapter 43 (co-authored with Tukiev A.S.);  

     Podoprigora Roman Anatolyevich, Doctor of Law, Professor - Chapter 24, articles 489, 489-1, 490;

     Porokhov Evgeny Viktorovich, Doctor of Law – Chapters 14, 15, 16, 29, articles 471-475;

     Seitzhanov Olzhas Temirzhanovich, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor, – chapter 4; chapter 5 (co-authored with E. M. Khakimov); chapter 6 (co-authored with S.V. Korneychuk, E.M. Khakimov); chapter 9; chapter 10 (co-authored with B.E. Shaimerdenov, V.V. Filin); chapter 33 (co-authored with Zhusipbekova A.M.); chapter 36 (co-authored with Shaimerdenov B.E.); chapter 39 (co-authored with Zhusipbekova A.M.);

     Smyshlyaev Alexander Sergeevich, PhD. – chapters 38, 40, 42, 43-1 (co-authored with A.S. Tukiev); chapter 44;

     Aslan Sultanovich Tukiev - Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – chapters 1, 3, 35; chapters 38, 40, 42, (co-authored with A.S. Smyshlyaev); chapter 43 (co-authored with B.A. Parmankulova); chapter 43-1 (co-authored with A.S. Smyshlyaev); chapter 44-1 (co-authored with Shipp D.A.); chapter 45; 46 (co-authored with Shipp D.A.); chapter 47;  

     Filin Vladimir Vladimirovich, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – Chapter 10 (in collaboration with O.T. Seitzhanov, B.E. Shaimerdenov);  

     Yerzhan Maratovich Khakimov, M.yu.n. – chapter 5 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov); chapter 6 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov, S.V. Korneychuk); chapter 7; chapter 25 (co-authored with S.V. Korneychuk); chapters 34, 41; chapter 48 (co-authored with S.N. Bachurin); chapter 53;

     Shaimerdenov Bolat Yerkenovich, M.yu.n., – chapter 10 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov, V.V. Filin); chapter 12; articles 476-487, 507-509; chapter 36 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov); chapters 37, 50, 51.  

     Shipp Denis Alekseevich – chapters 44-1, 46 (in collaboration with A.S. Tukiev).

Date of amendment of the act:  01.01.2020 Date of adoption of the act:  01.01.2020 Place of acceptance:  100050000000 Authority that adopted the act: 103001000000 Region of operation:  100000000000 NPA registration number assigned by the regulatory body:  5 Status of the act:  new Sphere of legal relations:  029000000000 / 028000000000 / 029002000000 / 028004000000 / 029001000000 / 026000000000 / 001000000000 / 001008000000 / 030000000000 The form of the act:  COMM / CODE Legal force:  1900 Language of the Act:  rus  

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases