Commentary to article 71. Limitation periods The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences
The limitation periods provided for in Article 62 of this Code, when releasing minors from administrative responsibility or executing an administrative penalty, shall be reduced by half.
This article defines the time limits after which the possibility of imposing an administrative penalty on minors is excluded.
According to Article 65 of the Administrative Code, minors are recognized as persons who turned sixteen at the time of the commission of an administrative offense, but were under eighteen years old.
In accordance with Article 62 of the Administrative Code, a person is subject to administrative liability on a general basis after two months from the date of the commission of an administrative offense.
The limitation period for administrative liability is the period during which a person who has committed an administrative offense may be brought to administrative responsibility and after which proceedings on an administrative offense case cannot be initiated, and the proceedings initiated are subject to termination. This provision is based on the fact that the expiration of the limitation period for administrative liability is attributed to circumstances that exclude proceedings on an administrative offense (paragraph 5) of Part 1 of Article 741 of the Administrative Code). In accordance with Article 809 of the Administrative Code, the expiration of the limitation period for administrative liability is the basis for the issuance by the official in charge of the administrative offense case of a decision to terminate proceedings on an administrative offense in compliance with the requirements provided for in Articles 741 and 742 of the Administrative Code. In addition, among the issues that the body (official) must clarify in preparation for the consideration of an administrative offense case is whether there are circumstances precluding the proceedings (art. 813 of the Administrative Code).
The beginning of the limitation period for bringing a person to administrative responsibility is considered, as a general rule, the day of the commission of an administrative offense. The day when an administrative offense is committed is the day when an individual or legal entity on the objective side performs an unlawful, culpable (intentional or negligent) act or omission that entails administrative responsibility, regardless of the time of the consequences.
The legislator pointed out that in the event of termination of the criminal case, if the offender's actions show signs of an administrative offense, this person may be brought to administrative responsibility no later than three months from the date of receipt of the decision to terminate the proceedings in the criminal case. The decision to initiate proceedings on an administrative offense case is made by the prosecutor.
The legislator also provides for administrative offenses, for which the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility is calculated not from the date of commission, but from the date of discovery (art. 62 of the Administrative Code).
Such offenses include ongoing administrative offenses, as well as administrative offenses in the field of budgetary relations or infringing on the legally protected interests of society and the state.
In some cases, it is possible to set a start date for the commission of a continuing administrative offense, but much more often this is not possible, since the commission of a continuing administrative offense can continue continuously for several days, months, or even years. Since the duration of the commission of an administrative offense does not affect its qualification, in the case of a continuing administrative offense, the limitation period is calculated from the moment of its discovery. It should be borne in mind that the continuation of illegal behavior, despite the explanation of the law by the prosecutor and (or) the requirement of authorized persons to stop it, is a circumstance aggravating administrative responsibility (art. 57 of the Administrative Code), and does not give grounds for classifying an administrative offense committed in such circumstances as continuing.
The Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 22, 2016 No. 12 clarifies that the reduction by half of the statute of limitations provided for in Article 71 of the Administrative Code, established by Article 62 of the Administrative Code, is subject to application when releasing minors from administrative responsibility or executing administrative penalties.
In cases of administrative offenses for which the parents of juvenile offenders or persons replacing them are liable, the provisions of Article 71 of the Administrative Code are not applicable when resolving the issue of applying the time limits for imposing administrative penalties provided for in Article 62 of the Administrative Code.
For example, if Part 1 of Article 62 of the Administrative Code stipulates that a person is not subject to administrative liability after two months from the date of the commission of an administrative offense, then this period is reduced by half in relation to a minor. The same grounds apply for the release of a minor from the execution of the prescribed type of penalty, that is, the decision has not been enforced within six months from the date of its entry into force.
Shortening of time limits is a common measure for the entire administrative code and can be applied to all persons who have reached the age of 16, but not exceeding 18 years, in other cases, responsibility will be imposed on parents or persons replacing them, who are to be involved in the consideration of the case as legal representatives.
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
