On some issues of application by courts of the norms of the Special part of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offenses
Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 6, 2017 No. 7.
Based on the results of generalizations of judicial practice, in order to ensure the uniformity of practice in the application by courts of the norms of the Special Part of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offenses, as well as taking into account the issues that courts have when considering cases of administrative offenses, the plenary session of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan decides to provide the following clarifications.
To explain to the courts that, in accordance with the first part of Article 64 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code), cases of administrative offences provided for in Article 73 of the Administrative Code are initiated only upon the application of the injured persons listed in the Note to this Article. The commission of any of the actions listed in this article by the offender in an individual residential building (including a courtyard or a private plot), apartment or other dwelling should express disrespect for persons who are in family and domestic relations with the offender and disturb their peace of mind. The acts described in the disposition of this article, committed against persons who do not meet the criteria listed in the Note to this article (for example, who are distant relatives or relatives of the offender, that is, close relatives of the spouse, but living separately from the offender), should be qualified according to the relevant articles of the Administrative Code and the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code), which provides for liability for offenses against the person. The same acts that violate the peace of any persons located outside the premises specified in this article (for example, on stairwells, in the entrances of apartment buildings), expressing disrespect for them, do not entail liability under Article 73 of the Administrative Code.
The responsibility of parents or other legal representatives of minors under Article 127 of the Administrative Code occurs when they violate the duty to raise and educate minor children, which is assigned to these persons by virtue of the provisions of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Marriage (Matrimony) and the Family," for example, teaching a child the rules of conduct in everyday life, in public places, familiarization with moral and the moral principles of society. For violation by the same persons of the duties arising from Article 49 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 27, 2007 No. 319-III "On Education", for example, for failure to provide pre-school education or systematic skipping classes without valid reasons, responsibility comes under the second part of Article 409 of the Administrative Code.
Some articles of the Administrative Code contain parts that strengthen responsibility for the commission of illegal actions outlined in the previous parts: increased fines, additional penalties. At the same time, additional penalties such as suspension or prohibition of activities or certain types of activities, as well as suspension or revocation of a license for the relevant type of activity, should be applied to persons who have the appropriate permit to carry out such activities. Employees of business entities engaged in activities requiring special permission may be subjects of such offenses only if the act provided for in the Special Part of the Administrative Code was not authorized, approved, committed by an authority, a person performing the management functions of a legal entity, or an employee of an individual entrepreneur and a legal entity performing organizational, administrative or economic functions.. At the same time, taking into account the civil consequences for the employer of any transactions and torts committed by an employee in the performance of work duties, such approval or authorization should be considered established on the basis of an employment relationship (including in the absence of proper registration of an employment relationship - upon admission to the performance of work duties), until proven otherwise.
When considering cases of administrative offenses by the courts under Article 132 of the Administrative Code, the courts should be guided by part four of Article 33 of the Administrative Code, according to which bringing individual entrepreneurs and legal entities to administrative responsibility releases an employee of an individual entrepreneur and a legal entity from administrative responsibility for this offense. When committing this offense by an individual, an employee of an individual entrepreneur or a legal entity, the business entity, the employer of such an employee, is subject to administrative liability, to which an administrative penalty provided for in the sanction of part two of this article may be applied in the form of suspension of activities or certain types of activities.
In the same manner, issues of imposing penalties in cases of administrative offenses committed by employees of a business entity in the workplace in the performance of their work duties are subject to resolution under articles of the Special Part of the Administrative Code, the sanction of which provides for the suspension or prohibition of activities or certain types of activities, as well as suspension or revocation of a license for the relevant type of activity.
When committing such offenses, individuals who carry out their activities only on their own behalf, and not in connection with the performance of work duties, such persons are liable independently. The application of additional penalties to these individuals is mandatory in accordance with paragraph 8 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 22, 2016 No. 12 "On certain issues of application by courts of the norms of the General Part of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan". In cases where a license is required to carry out such activities, these individuals are additionally liable under the first part of Article 463 of the Administrative Code.
The footnote. Paragraph 3 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
Illegal interference of officials of state bodies exercising supervisory and control functions, as well as local executive bodies in the activities of individual entrepreneurs and legal entities by issuing illegal acts and giving illegal instructions that impede their business activities, in accordance with Article 173 of the Administrative Code, is an administrative offense.
When considering cases of administrative offenses under Article 173 of the Administrative Code, courts should take into account that the cancellation of rulings on cases of administrative offenses against business entities indicates that they have been unlawfully brought to administrative responsibility and may entail consequences provided for by law. However, such a cancellation alone is not enough for the presence in the actions of the bodies (officials) who issued the canceled decisions of signs of an offense provided for in Article 173 of the Administrative Code. An official may not be held responsible for the performance of his official duties in the absence of evidence of unlawful interference in business activities.
Illegal interference by government officials may result in abuse of power or abuse of official authority. Illegal interference is accompanied by the issuance of an act, giving instructions, or performing other actions that are subsequently recognized as illegal in accordance with the established procedure.
Excluded by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
In accordance with the first part of Article 274 of the Administrative Code, the intentional failure to submit or submit incomplete, unreliable declarations and information on income and property subject to taxation by a person holding a public position, a person dismissed from public service for negative reasons, as well as by the spouse of these persons within the time limits established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, entails administrative responsibility. Taking into account the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 499, paragraph 3 of Article 527 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and Other Mandatory Payments to the Budget (Tax Code)", the submission of information about property in common joint ownership by only one of the co-owners does not constitute an offense for other co-owners.
The footnote. Paragraph 6 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
The sanction of the fifth part of Article 281 of the Administrative Code provides for additional administrative penalties in the form of confiscation of petroleum products, tobacco products that are the direct objects of an administrative offense, and (or) income received as a result of the offense, or without it. If a decision is made to apply this additional penalty and if it is not possible to confiscate petroleum products or tobacco products, confiscation should be applied to the proceeds from their sale in the amount established by the authorized body during the pre-trial proceedings.
The footnote. Paragraph 7 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
The turnover and movement of homemade alcoholic beverages that do not comply with GOST, in plastic or tin containers or without labels, as well as without accompanying invoices, does not entail liability under part three of Article 282 of the Administrative Code.
Article 5 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 16, 1999 No. 429-I "On State regulation of production and turnover of ethyl alcohol and alcoholic products" defines an exhaustive list of types of alcoholic products. Other alcoholic and low-alcohol beverages are excluded from this article by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 11, 2006 No. 201-III "On Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on taxation". The sale of these products by persons unregistered as business entities constitutes an offense provided for in the first part of Article 463 of the Administrative Code for engaging in entrepreneurial or other activities without a license.
Changing the deadlines for paying taxes or other mandatory payments to the budget provided for by the Tax Code does not exempt from liability for previously committed offenses resulting in violation of such deadlines.
The footnote. Paragraph 9 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
In accordance with the first part of Article 55 of the General Part of the Administrative Code, an administrative penalty for an administrative offense is imposed within the limits provided for in the article of the Special Part of the section for this administrative offense, in strict accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Code. In the sixth part of the same article, one main or main and additional administrative penalties may be imposed for one administrative offense. That is, the general rules for imposing penalties do not provide for the imposition of more than one additional penalty.
The sanction of Article 283 of the Administrative Code provides for a fine with confiscation of excisable goods that were the direct subject of the offense, as well as with the deprivation of a license for the relevant type of activity. When considering cases under Article 283 of the Administrative Code, courts should take into account the priority of the norms of the General Part of the Administrative Code over the provisions of the Special Part of the Administrative Code and motivate the choice of a specific additional penalty based on the nature of the offense and achieving the goals specified in Article 40 of the Administrative Code.
The sanction of Article 314 of the Administrative Code provides for additional penalties in the form of suspension of work. This penalty is subject to application in accordance with Article 48 of the Administrative Code.
If a nature user commits an offense provided for in Article 328 of the Administrative Code, with the exception of the absence of an environmental permit, it is unacceptable to simultaneously hold him accountable under Article 326 of the Administrative Code if non-compliance with the environmental management conditions specified in the environmental permit resulted only in exceeding the emission standards into the environment. In the case of bringing a nature user to administrative responsibility under Article 328 of the Administrative Code for the absence of an environmental permit, simultaneous bringing to administrative responsibility under Article 326 of the Administrative Code is unacceptable.
The administrative liability provided for in the first part of Article 440 of the Administrative Code for appearing in public places in a state of intoxication that offends human dignity and public morality occurs both with alcohol, narcotic or substance abuse intoxication.
The administrative responsibility provided for in the second part of the same article for drinking alcoholic beverages by persons under the age of eighteen comes for committing such actions both in public and in any other place.
The one-year period established by part three of the same article should be calculated from the date of entry into force of the previous decision on the imposition of an administrative penalty under part one or two of Article 440 of the Administrative Code. To qualify the same actions under part four of this article, it is necessary that a person be held administratively liable twice earlier in the year under this article, and for both decisions the time limit set by Article 61 of the Administrative Code has not expired.
The beginning of the period provided for in the first part of Article 460 of the Administrative Code, in accordance with Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 26, 2007 No. 310-III "On State Registration of rights to immovable property" is subject to calculation from the moment of occurrence of the legal fact that is the basis for the right to immovable property (in particular, notarization of the contract, entry into force of a court decision, receipt of another title document), if the person actually has and receives documents from authorized bodies certifying the object of registration (for example, identification document for the land plot), necessary and sufficient for filing documents for the state registration of rights to immovable property.
The footnote. Paragraph 14 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
When considering cases of administrative offenses under the third part of Article 462 of the Administrative Code in relation to institutions funded from the budget or their officials, courts should take into account that the fulfillment of legal requirements or orders, representations, resolutions issued by state control and supervision bodies (officials), officials of state bodies (for example, on the elimination of violations of fire safety or legislation on the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population), requires certain financial costs, and the funds necessary to comply with the regulations are not always available to the heads of these institutions. The allocation of funds by administrators of budget programs is associated with the need to approve additional expenses at the sessions of the relevant maslikhats, the announcement of public procurement of services.
Therefore, in respect of officials who have taken all measures in their power to comply with the legal requirements of the regulations, but who have not been generally fulfilled for reasons beyond their control, including due to lack of necessary funding, the proceedings may be terminated due to lack of guilt.
In the case of bringing such officials to administrative responsibility under this article of the Administrative Code, it should be borne in mind that additional penalties in the form of suspension of activities or certain types of activities in accordance with the first part of Article 48 of the Administrative Code are not applied to officials.
At the same time, such cases against legal entities are not subject to termination under the same circumstances, since in accordance with the first part of Article 25 of the Administrative Code, an unlawful act or omission of a legal entity for which administrative liability is provided for in the Administrative Code is an administrative offense.
By virtue of article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, December 16, 1966, ratified by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 28, 2005 No. 91-III, entered into force for the Republic of Kazakhstan on April 24, 2006), the exercise of the recognized right to peaceful assembly is not subject to any restrictions, except those which are imposed in accordance with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of State or public safety, public order, the protection of public health and morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The same right is guaranteed by article 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution).
The procedure for exercising and conditions for limiting this right are established by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 17, 1995 No. 2126 "On the Procedure for Organizing and Holding Peaceful Assemblies, Rallies, Marches, Pickets and Demonstrations in the Republic of Kazakhstan", article 8 of which stipulates that assemblies, rallies, marches, pickets and demonstrations must be unconditionally terminated upon request. a representative of the local executive body of a city of republican significance, capital, district (city of regional significance), if: no application has been submitted, a decision has been taken to ban, the procedure provided for in articles 4, 5 and 7 of the above-mentioned Law has been violated, as well as in case of danger to the life and health of citizens, violation of public order.
The administrative liability provided for in the first part of Article 488 of the Administrative Code of participants in such a public event, who are not organizers, for participating in illegal meetings, rallies, marches, demonstrations or other public event occurs after failure to comply with the above requirements of a representative of the local executive body. Therefore, when considering cases of administrative offenses under Article 488 of the Administrative Code, courts need to examine evidence of the actual statement of such a claim, its validity and legality, as well as its non-fulfillment by a participant in a public event against whom proceedings on an administrative offense are underway.
Arguments about the violation of the principle of proportionality by demanding the cessation of a rally may be considered later in civil proceedings, but at the time of such a request by a representative of the local executive body, his competence is not subject to dispute.
Prior to obtaining permission to hold a mass event, its organizer, as well as other persons, may not announce in the mass media, the Internet or other information networks the date, place and time of its holding, produce and distribute leaflets, posters and other similar materials for this purpose. Violation of this requirement entails liability of the organizer under part three of Article 488 of the Administrative Code for violating the procedure for organizing a public event.
The free provision of public services for issuing a decision on the approval of the location of premises for religious events outside religious buildings (structures) does not exempt from liability under subparagraph 1) of the first part of Article 490 of the Administrative Code for holding such events without a corresponding decision of the local executive body, issued in the form of a letter of approval on the location of the premises.
Article 1 of the Agreement between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation on the Procedure for the Stay of Citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Territory of the Russian Federation and Citizens of the Russian Federation on the Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Astana, June 7, 2012, ratified by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 14, 2014 No. 250-V, entered into force on January 23, 2015) establishes that citizens Upon entry into the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation is exempt from the registration obligation within 30 days from the date of entry. In case of a stay of more than 30 days, these citizens are required to register with the competent authorities of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Administrative liability of an immigrant from the Russian Federation under the first part of Article 517 of the Administrative Code occurs in the case of his stay in the Republic of Kazakhstan without registration with the internal affairs bodies for up to three days after the expiration of 30 days of stay in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The same procedure applies to immigrants from countries with which the Republic of Kazakhstan has similar international agreements.
The footnote. Paragraph 18 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
Calculation of the five calendar days established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan for registration of immigrants (paragraph 9 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 21, 2012 No. 148 "On approval of the Rules for Entry and Stay of Immigrants in the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as their departure from the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Rules for Migration Control, as well as registration of foreigners and stateless persons, illegally crossing the State Border of the Republic of Kazakhstan, illegally staying in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as persons, who are prohibited from entering the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of Entry and Stay of Immigrants), subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 14 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 6, 2016 No. 480-V "On Legal Acts" (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Legal Acts) begins at 00.01 hours of the day following those during which the immigrant crossed the State Border of the Republic of Kazakhstan or arrived at the receiving person.
Non-working hours are also included in this period, however, if the last day of the period falls on a non-working day, the day of the end of the period is considered to be the next working day following it (paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the Law on Legal Acts). The same procedure applies for the other term mentioned in Article 517 of the Administrative Code - "three days".
The footnote. Paragraph 19 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
In accordance with paragraph 17 of the Rules of Entry and Stay of Immigrants, citizens of 45 states enter the Republic of Kazakhstan and leave the Republic of Kazakhstan without a visa, if the period of their stay in the Republic of Kazakhstan does not exceed 30 calendar days from the moment of crossing the State border of the Republic of Kazakhstan. At the same time, the same persons can enter Kazakhstan on a visa. If the validity period of the visa expires before the period of the visa-free stay, such a person has the right to use the remaining days of the visa-free stay. However, both of these terms are calculated in parallel and cannot be added together.
The footnote. Paragraph 20 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
The sixth part of Article 517 of the Administrative Code provides for administrative liability for acts provided for in parts one and three of this Article, committed repeatedly within a year after the imposition of an administrative penalty. Also, part seven of Article 517 of the Administrative Code provides for administrative liability for acts provided for in parts two, four and five of this article, committed repeatedly within a year after the imposition of an administrative penalty. For the presence of the composition of these offenses, the simultaneous totality of all the acts listed in the disposition of the article is optional.
In this case, a repetition is formed when the same person commits any of the actions listed in the disposition of part six or seven of Article 517 of the Administrative Code, respectively. The newly committed act may not be identical to the one for which the person was brought to administrative responsibility during the year. For example, a migrant who was previously brought to administrative responsibility under the second part of Article 517 of the Administrative Code for staying in Kazakhstan without registration with the internal affairs bodies beyond the time limits provided for in the first part of this article, if he subsequently found out that he did not live at the address indicated in the registration, or evaded departure for a period exceeding three days after the expiration of the period specified in the visa or upon registration in the migration card is subject to liability under part seven of this article.
An offence is not considered repeated if a person has been released from administrative responsibility and administrative punishment for a previously committed offence on the grounds established by law.
Non-declaration or unreliable customs declaration of goods transported or displaced across the customs border of the Eurasian Economic Union shall entail liability under the first part of Article 551 of the Administrative Code only if such acts provide grounds for exemption from customs duties, taxes, understatement of customs duties, taxes, special, anti-dumping, countervailing duties or entail non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of the obligation to pay them.
Failure to provide false information about the goods, the chosen customs procedure, the customs value, or the country of origin of the goods in the prescribed form, or a statement by the declarant, customs representative, authorized economic operator in the customs declaration and other documents required for customs purposes, or a statement of other false information that does not provide grounds for exemption from customs duties, taxes, special, anti-dumping, countervailing duties, or underestimation of their amount, for example, when the declarant's statement in the customs declaration of an erroneous product code did not lead to his exemption from paying customs duties and taxes stipulated by law or underestimating their amount, it does not constitute an administrative offense.
The footnote. Paragraph 22 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
Article 610 of the Administrative Code provides for administrative liability for the commission of an administrative offense when, as a result of a violation by a person driving a vehicle of traffic rules, damage was caused to vehicles, goods, roads, road and other structures or other property, resulting in material damage or minor harm to the health of the victim. The same act, which caused moderate harm to the victim's health, is a criminal offense in accordance with article 345 of the Criminal Code.
If, as a result of the above-mentioned unlawful actions, the driver driving the vehicle, along with causing material damage, inflicted harm to several victims of varying severity (mild, moderate, severe) or caused other consequences in the form of death, then the guilty person is subject to criminal liability under the relevant part of articles 345, 346. Criminal Code without bringing to administrative responsibility.
In the event that the actions of the driver, along with causing minor harm to the victim's health, also caused material damage in the form of damage to vehicles or other property, the guilty person is subject to administrative liability only under the second part of Article 610 or, if the driver is intoxicated, under the third part of Article 608 of the Administrative Code.
The footnote. Paragraph 23 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
When considering cases of administrative offenses, it should be assumed that drivers who are deprived of the right to drive vehicles, unlike persons whose right to drive a vehicle is suspended on the recommendation of a bailiff, are not subjects of offenses involving liability for persons who do not have the right to drive vehicles, with the exception of norms that explicitly state both entities are mentioned simultaneously (for example, in the third part of Article 611 of the Administrative Code).
Drivers who do not have the right to drive the corresponding category of transport cannot be equated with drivers who do not have the right to drive a vehicle at all, with the exception of norms that explicitly mention both subjects at the same time (for example, in the second part of Article 612 of the Administrative Code). Therefore, driving under the influence of alcohol in the absence of a permit in the driver's license for driving this category of vehicles is subject to qualification not according to part six of Article 608 of the Administrative Code, but according to the totality of part one of Article 608 and part two of Article 612 of the Administrative Code in the absence of other qualifying features.
The deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle applies equally to both car drivers and persons driving tractors and other self-propelled vehicles, trams, trolleybuses, motorcycles and other mechanical vehicles in accordance with the definition of a vehicle in the note to Article 590 of the Administrative Code. Thus, when driving a tractor under the influence of alcohol, a person who has a driver's license but does not have the right to drive a tractor cannot be considered as a person who does not have the right to drive a vehicle and is liable in accordance with the procedure specified in the previous paragraph.
If, after executing an administrative penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle, the driver has not received a driver's license again in accordance with the established procedure, then for the purposes of determining administrative or criminal liability for committing similar offenses, he should be considered as a driver who does not have such a right. If, after the execution of the decision to deprive the driver of the right to drive a vehicle, the driver regained such a right in accordance with the procedure established by law, then for committing an offense under parts one, two and three of Article 608 of the Administrative Code within a year after the expiration of the administrative penalty, he is liable under part four of Article 608 of the Administrative Code, and in the case of committing the same offense under at the end of the year – for the first, second and third parts, respectively.
The composition of the administrative offense provided for in the second part of Article 611 of the Administrative Code is considered completed from the moment the person driving the vehicle leaves the scene of the traffic accident.
When leaving the scene of a traffic accident due to the need to take the victim in an emergency to a medical facility for pre-medical care in a case where this cannot be done by passing transport, the driver, in accordance with the Note to Article 611 of the Administrative Code, is released from liability under this article. At the same time, such a driver is released from liability, including under the first part of Article 611 of the Administrative Code, if he fails to fulfill other duties in connection with a traffic accident provided for in subparagraph 8) of paragraph 1 of Section 2 of the Traffic Rules, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 13, 2014 No. 1196 (hereinafter referred to as the Traffic Rules), with the exception of not returning to the scene of the accident after taking the victim to a medical facility.
In the absence of injured people, drivers can leave the scene only with mutual agreement in assessing the circumstances of the incident, having previously drawn up a diagram of the incident and signed it (paragraph 8 of Section 1 of the Traffic Rules). After that, drivers are required to arrive at the nearest police department to register the incident. If these duties are not fulfilled, such drivers are liable under the first part of Article 611 of the Administrative Code.
In cases where a traffic accident did not result in injury to health, death of a person, damage to vehicles, structures, goods or other material damage, leaving the scene of the accident also does not entail liability under Article 611 of the Administrative Code. If the only victim in a traffic accident is the offender himself, such a driver is not subject to administrative liability under Articles 610 and 611 of the Administrative Code, but may be held administratively liable under the relevant article of the Special Part of the Administrative Code, which provides for liability for violating a specific paragraph of the Traffic Rules. At the same time, issues of compensation for damage caused to the property of other co-owners of common property with the driver are subject to consideration and resolution in civil proceedings.
If a traffic accident that resulted in the death of livestock and domestic animals took place outside the area of the warning road signs 1.24 "Cattle crossing" in the absence of a violation of the speed limit and other provisions of the Traffic Rules, the driver of the vehicle is not subject to administrative liability under the first part of Article 610 of the Administrative Code. The immediate cause of a traffic accident in such circumstances is the failure of the livestock owner to fulfill the duty of animal supervision, which is assigned to him by subparagraph 1) paragraph 12 of section 24 of the Traffic Rules, which, depending on the circumstances, entails liability under part two of Article 615 or part two of Article 633 of the Administrative Code.
The footnote. Paragraph 26 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
When driving a vehicle by a driver deprived of the right to drive a vehicle, his actions are qualified under part three of Article 612 of the Administrative Code, with the exception of committing offenses provided for in part five of Article 596, part three of Article 610, part three of Article 611, parts 3-1 and the seventh of Article 613 of the Administrative Code. Such actions are not subject to additional qualification under Article 669 of the Administrative Code.
The footnote. Paragraph 27 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
Incomplete provision to a lawyer of the requested documents, materials or information required for the performance of his professional duties should be considered as failure to provide such documents to a lawyer within the time limits established by law, which entails administrative liability under article 668 of the Code, if these actions do not have signs of a criminal offense.
The footnote. Paragraph 28 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
When considering cases of administrative offenses under Article 669 of the Administrative Code, courts should take into account that the debtor's lack of a real opportunity to execute a judicial act in a certain part or in full precludes the possibility of bringing a person to responsibility under this article. At the same time, the courts should proceed from the fact that the debtor is obliged to independently take all measures depending on him and in the most active way to facilitate the fulfillment of the duty assigned to him to execute the judicial act and the executive document. Failure to comply with orders and other legal requirements of the bailiff, with the exception of the requirement to execute the enforcement document as a whole, entails liability under parts one and two of Article 670 of the Administrative Code.
In case of non-payment of a fine imposed by a court on a person after the expiration of the period provided for in the first part of Article 893 of the Administrative Code, or after the expiration of the deferral period provided for in Article 888 of the Administrative Code, such person is liable under Article 669 of the Administrative Code, regardless of whether the decision is enforced.
The footnote. Paragraph 29 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/31/2019 No. 4 (effective from the date of the first official publication).
For the commission of administrative corruption offenses, the sanctions of articles of Chapter 34 of the Administrative Code do not provide for the confiscation of property obtained as a result of an administrative offense. When resolving cases of such administrative offenses, the courts, in accordance with the third part of Article 822 of the Administrative Code, should decide the fate of physical evidence by transferring it to the appropriate institutions or destroying it.
According to article 4 of the Constitution, this normative resolution is included in the current law, is generally binding and comes into force from the date of the first official publication.
Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan
K. Mamie
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Secretary of the plenary session
K. Shaukharov
© 2012. RSE na PHB "Institute of Legislation and Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan" of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Constitution Law Code Standard Decree Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases
