The time of the commission of an administrative offense is the time of the commission of an act provided for in the special part of the Administrative Code, regardless of the time of the onset of consequences.
By the resolution of the State Institution "Financial Control Inspectorate for the Pavlodar region of the Financial Control Committee of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as the Inspection) dated August 2, 2013, K. was brought to administrative responsibility under part eight of Article 167 of the Administrative Code with the imposition of a fine in the amount of 100 monthly calculation indices (hereinafter referred to as MCI) in the amount of 173,100 tenge. By the ruling of the specialized administrative court of the city of Pavlodar dated August 29, 2013, the Inspection's decision was canceled, the proceedings in the case under part eight of Article 167 of the Administrative Code were terminated due to the absence of elements of an administrative offense in K.'s actions. In the protest, the Deputy Prosecutor General argued that the specialized administrative court had improperly applied the norms of law and that the termination of administrative proceedings in the case was illegal, and that the authorized body had correctly qualified K.'s actions. According to the eighth part of Article 167 of the Administrative Code, he asked to cancel the ruling of the specialized administrative court of the city of Pavlodar dated August 29, 2013, to amend the Inspection resolution, reducing the administrative penalty imposed on K. to the amount provided for by the sanction of the eighth part of Article 167 of the Administrative Code, that is, to 30 MCI.
The time of the commission of an administrative offense is the time of the commission of an act provided for in the special part of the Administrative Code, regardless of the time of the onset of consequences.
Having examined the case materials, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan overturned the ruling of the specialized administrative court of the city of Pavlodar dated August 29, 2013, recognizing K.'s bringing to administrative responsibility under part eight of Article 167 of the Administrative Code as lawful, changed the resolution of the Inspectorate dated August 2, 2013, reducing the amount of the penalty imposed on the offender to the amount provided for by the sanction of the specified provision of the law – up to an amount equal to 30 MCI – 51,930 tenge for the following reasons. It follows from the case file that on June 19, 2013, during an inspection conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of the Irtysh district of the Pavlodar region at the State Committee for Cultural Affairs "House of Culture" of the Department of Culture, Language Development, Physical Culture and Sports of the Irtysh District (hereinafter referred to as the House of Culture), a violation of the Law "On Public Procurement" was revealed, as follows: In particular, the director of the K. House of Culture failed to take measures to recognize a potential supplier, K LLP, who had failed to fulfill contractual obligations, as an unscrupulous participant in public procurement. The Specialized Administrative Court of the city of Pavlodar motivated the termination of the proceedings by pointing out that the authorized body had incorrectly imposed an administrative penalty on K. in the form of a fine of one hundred MCI, exceeding the amount of the penalty provided for by the sanction of part eight of Article 167 of the Administrative Code, as well as the conclusion that at the time of consideration of the case, K. She was no longer the subject of an administrative offense, since she was dismissed from the post of director of the House of Culture on July 29, 2013. This court's conclusion is the result of improper application of the law, since according to the first part of Article 34 of the Administrative Code, an official is held administratively liable if he commits an administrative offense in connection with non-performance or improper performance of his official duties, and in accordance with the second part of Article 5 of the Administrative Code, the time of commission of an administrative offense is the time of the act provided for in the special part of the Administrative Code., regardless of the time of onset of the consequences. As established in the case, at the time of the commission of the offense, K. held the position of director of the House of Culture, therefore, in the absence of the grounds provided for in Article 69 of the Administrative Code, her subsequent loss of official status cannot entail termination of administrative proceedings and exemption from administrative responsibility. Reasonably involving K. to be administratively liable for violating the legislation on public procurement, the authorized body allowed the incorrect application of the law, imposing on the offender a penalty exceeding the penalty provided for by the sanction of the eighth part of Article 167 of the Administrative Code in the form of 30 MCI. This violation does not constitute grounds for termination of administrative proceedings in the case, but in accordance with subparagraph 2) of Article 665, subparagraph 3) of the first part of Article 667 of the Administrative Code entails a change in the Inspection resolution of August 2, 2013.
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
