Illegal termination of proceedings on an administrative offense that caused a collision without observing traffic safety
Due measures have not been taken to verify the objectivity of the arguments of the participants in the incident, and a proper legal assessment has not been given. The senior inspector of the Traffic police Department of the Department of Internal Affairs of the city of Ekibastuz (hereinafter referred to as the Department of Internal Affairs), Police Major B., has drawn up a protocol on an administrative offense against M., provided for in part 2 of Article 468 of the Administrative Code. driving a car, moving from west to east along M.Auezov Street in the city of Ekibastuz, at the intersection with Stroitelnaya Street, without ensuring road safety, she collided with a car driven by D., moving from north to south along Stroitelnaya Street. By a decision of the specialized administrative court of the city of Ekibastuz dated May 21, 2012, the proceedings initiated against M. on an administrative offense were terminated due to the absence of elements of an offense in her actions provided for in part 2 of Article 468 of the Administrative Code. By the ruling of the Pavlodar Regional Court of July 26, 2012, the resolution of the specialized administrative court remained unchanged, D.'s complaint was dismissed.
Illegal termination of proceedings on an administrative offense that caused a collision without observing traffic safety
In the protest, the Deputy Prosecutor General argued that the courts had committed a significant violation of the rules of procedural law, which led to the illegal termination of the proceedings initiated against M. on an administrative offense, and asked the decision of the specialized administrative court of Ekibastuz dated May 21, 2012 and the ruling of the Pavlodar Regional Court dated July 26, 2012 to cancel the administrative offense case for a new hearing.. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the specialized administrative court of the city of Ekibastuz and the ruling of the Pavlodar Regional Court. The case of an administrative offense under part 2 of Article 468 of the Administrative Code, initiated against M., was sent to the specialized administrative court of the city of Ekibastuz for a new judicial review in a different composition, stating the following. As mentioned above, it can be seen from the administrative offense report dated March 05, 2012, that on July 13, 2011, M., who was driving a car, collided with a car driven by D., moving along Stroitelnaya Street in the direction from north to south. It was established that as a result of a traffic accident (hereinafter referred to as the accident), both vehicles received mechanical damage. In addition, the driver D. and the minor passenger N., who were in the cabin of a Honda CRV car, suffered bodily injuries that caused minor harm to everyone's health. By the decision of the IDP of the ODP of the Department of Internal Affairs of B. dated February 07, 2012, the initiation of a criminal case against M. was refused due to the lack of corpus delicti in her actions provided for in Article 296 of the Criminal Code. The specialized administrative court motivated the termination of the proceedings by the lack of evidence of M.'s guilt in violating the established traffic rules.
The court declared the protocol on an administrative offense dated March 05, 2012 with the attached traffic accident diagram dated July 13, 2011 and the expert opinion dated November 01, 2011 inadmissible as evidence in the case. In the supervisory protest, the prosecutor argued that the above conclusions of the specialized administrative court did not correspond to the factual circumstances of the case. The absence of M.'s signatures in the traffic accident scheme, as well as the witnesses V. and S. According to the prosecutor, at the scene of the accident at the time of drawing up the accident scheme, they did not serve as grounds for recognizing the accident scheme and protocol as inadmissible as evidence. The eyewitnesses of the accident, A., N. and O., explained in the case that they saw a Honda CRV car moving along M.Auezov Street at high speed, despite the red traffic light forbidding movement, entering the intersection from Stroitelnaya Street without slowing down, it collided with a car of the brand "A Toyota that was passing through a traffic light. The impact caused the Toyota car to spin 360°, and the Honda CRV car crashed into the fence outside the Bank building. The specialized administrative and regional courts did not give a proper legal assessment to the fact that the accident scheme drawn up by the IDP of the ODP of the Department of Internal Affairs of B. is consistent with the above-mentioned testimony of participants and eyewitnesses of the incident, and during the pre-investigation check and during the administrative proceedings M. did not declare the unreliability of the information indicated in the accident scheme, at the court hearing, at another place of collision of cars did not She pointed it out.
The protest argues that the testimony of T., R. and B. about crossing the intersection at a green traffic light, which is the basis of the contested judicial acts, on the contrary, is refuted by the evidence examined. According to the explanations of the named witnesses, they did not see the moment of the collision of the vehicles and could not reliably indicate the place of the collision, as well as whether the Toyota Carina E car was in the same position as in the collision, and at which traffic light it crossed the intersection. As refuting arguments of D. The courts also indicated the explanations of witness F., whereas he did not see the moment of the collision of vehicles, but only heard the sound of the impact of cars. The fact that the driver of a Honda CRV car exceeded the speed limit set in this locality was confirmed by witnesses A., N., O., and expert S. M. herself did not deny the fact that the speed of the vehicle she was driving was increased directly at the intersection at the time the green traffic light was flashing in order to complete the maneuver and cross Stroitelnaya Street before the appearance of forbidding the movement of a red traffic light.
According to the expert opinion of the Pavlodar Scientific and Production Laboratory of Forensic Examination S. dated November 01, 2011, in the conditions of this accident, the speed of a Honda CRV car immediately before the collision was determined to be about 96.0 km/h, and the speed of a Toyota Carina E car was about 33.6 km/According to the expert opinion of the Pavlodar Scientific and Production Laboratory of Forensic Examination S. dated November 01, 2011, in the conditions of this accident, the speed of a Honda CRV car immediately before the collision was determined to be about 96.0 km/h, and the speed of a Toyota Carina E car was about 33.6 km/h. At the same time, the courts of both instances, concluding in the contested judicial acts that the accident scheme and the above-mentioned expert opinion dated November 01, 2011 were inadmissible as evidence, At the same time, the courts of both instances, concluding in the contested judicial acts that the accident scheme and the above-mentioned expert opinion dated November 01, 2011 were inadmissible as evidence, did not interview expert S. himself, did not take other measures to clarify the issue of compliance or inconsistency of the information indicated in the accident scheme with the circumstances of the traffic situation, mechanical damage to two motor vehicles, injuries caused to driver D. and passenger N. as a result of the accident. By virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 604 of the Administrative Code, factual data must be declared inadmissible asBy virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 604 of the Administrative Code, factual data must be declared inadmissible as evidence if they were obtained in violation of the requirements of the Administrative Code, which, by depriving or restricting the legally guaranteed rights of participants in the process or violating other rules of the process, affected or could affect the reliability of the factual data obtained. In accordance with part 2 of Article 617 of the Administrative Code, each piece of evidence is subject to assessment in terms of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together is sufficient to resolve the case. The prottest provides arguments about the failure of the specialized administrative and regional courts to take appropriate measures to establish that the procedural violations committed by the IDP of the ODP of the Department of Internal Affairs of B. affected the reliability of the factual data in the case, and, in this regard, the conclusions of the judicial authorities based on a unilateral legal assessment of the arguments of the parties are disputed. In particular, it is pointed out that there is no violation of the requirements of the procedural law in the actions of the IDP of the ODP of the Department of Internal Affairs of B. due to the fact that M. She is not familiar with the protocol on an administrative offense and the attached scheme, because due to the need to provide medical assistance to her young son who was injured in an accident, she left the scene and subsequently did not appear at the traffic police authorities to familiarize herself with the named procedural documents.
Thus, the specialized administrative court of the city of Ekibastuz and the Pavlodar Regional Court, in accordance with the reqThus, the specialized administrative court of the city of Ekibastuz and the Pavlodar Regional Court, in accordance with the requirements of Articles 604, 617 of the Administrative Code, did not give a proper legal assessment to the evidence obtained in the case about the presence or absence of elements of an administrative offense in M.'s actions, and no appropriate measures were taken to verify the objectivity of the arguments of the participants in the incident. According to sub-paragraphs 2), 3) of Article 665, sub-paragraph 1) of part 1 of Article 667 of the Administrative Code, improper application of the law on administrative responsibility, a significant violation of the procedural rules of the law are grounds for the cancellation of the decision in the case of an administrative offense. According to the explanations contained in paragraph 21 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court No. 18 of November 26, 2004 "On certain issues of the application of legislation
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
