The transfer by the owner of the vehicle to drive the vehicle to another person who does not have the right to drive it indicates the commission of an administrative offense.
By the resolution of the specialized Administrative Court of Aktobe dated December 01, 2011 Sh. He was brought to administrative responsibility under part 1 of Article 467 of the Administrative Code with the imposition of an administrative penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of two years. A specialized court found it established that on August 16, 2011, in the city of Aktobe, Sh. handed over control of the vehicle to U., who was intoxicated. By the decision of the Aktobe Regional Court of December 13, 2011, the decision of the specialized administrative court remained unchanged, the complaint of Sh. – without satisfaction. In the protest, the Deputy Prosecutor General, without disputing the conclusions of the specialized administrative court and the Aktobe Regional Court on the transfer of control of the vehicle to U., who was intoxicated, argues that Sh. at the time of drawing up the protocol on the administrative offense, he was not the owner of the specified vehicle, did not have the authority to transfer control of the car to other persons, and, accordingly, was not the subject of the offense provided for in part 1 of Article 467 of the Administrative Code. Requests the judicial acts to be annulled and the administrative proceedings against Sh. to be terminated for lack of corpus delicti in his actions. In accordance with Article 2 of the Administrative Code, the basis of administrative responsibility is the commission of an act containing all the elements of an offense provided for in the special part of the Administrative Code. The disposition of part 1 of Article 467 of the Administrative Code provides for responsibility for transferring control of a vehicle to a person who is intoxicated. The existence of an administrative offense event, a person who has committed an unlawful act for which administrative liability is provided by Law, and the guilt of an individual in committing an administrative offense are circumstances that, in accordance with Article 605 of the Administrative Code, are subject to proof in an administrative offense case. The explanations of the person in respect of whom administrative proceedings are being conducted and the factual data contained in the protocol on an administrative offense, drawn up in accordance with the rules of the Administrative Code, according to Articles 606, 614 of the Administrative Code, are recognized as evidence in the case of an administrative offense. According to Article 617 of the Administrative Code, a judge conducting proceedings on an administrative offense evaluates evidence according to his inner conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the evidence in its entirety, guided by the law and conscience. No evidence has a pre-established validity.
Each piece of evidence is subject to an assessment in terms of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together is sufficient to resolve the case. The Specialized Administrative Court of Aktobe and the Aktobe Regional Court recognized the fact of Sh. an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 467 of the Administrative Code, based on evidence provided by the traffic police and examined in court sessions: - the protocol on the administrative offense of August 17, 2011, containing a written explanation by Sh. on the transfer of control of the vehicle to them, U. - written explanations from Sh. that on August 16, 2011, driving a car of the brand by proxy, that is, being at that time its owner, handed over control of the car to U., he was nearby in the cabin of the vehicle - the protocol on administrative offense dated August 17, 2011, drawn up under part 6 of Article 467 of the Administrative Code in relation to U., containing his written explanation about driving a car of the brand, on behalf of the nearby owner, Sh. - the medical examination report dated August 16, 2011, stating that U. was slightly intoxicated. The above-listed and other evidence in their totality were evaluated by judges of the specialized administrative court of Aktobe and the Aktobe Regional Court in accordance with the requirements of Article 617 of the Administrative Code on the basis of a comprehensive, complete and objective review in terms of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together - sufficiency to resolve the case, in particular – to conclude that at the time of handing over control of the vehicle to a person who was intoxicated, Sh. he had the authority of the owner of this vehicle. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dismissed the protest.
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
