Unreasonably rejected a competitive application for participation in public procurement, the term for imposing an administrative penalty for an administrative offense is suspended from the moment the case is sent to court by virtue of the requirements of part 4-1 of Article 69 of the Administrative Code.
According to the protocol on an administrative offense, the chief architect of the State Institution "Department of Construction, Architecture and Urban Planning of the city of Kurchatov" U. was the deputy chairman of the competition commission. On May 16, 2012, the commission unreasonably rejected the bids of P LLP, P-I Institute S LLP for participation in the tender for the reconstruction of boiler house No. 1 on solid fuel with the reconstruction of heating networks with the construction of an access railway in the city of Kurchatov, and also violated the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Public Procurement" regarding the non-application to price proposals of the relative importance of criteria affecting the competitive price offer of the bidders. By a decision of the Kurchatov City Court of the East Kazakhstan region dated June 25, 2013, proceedings in the case of an administrative offense against U. under parts 6-2 and 6-3 of Article 167 of the Administrative Code were terminated due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for administrative liability. The protest of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan raises the issue of canceling the decision of the Kurchatov City Court of the East Kazakhstan region dated June 25, 2013 and sending it for reconsideration in connection with the incorrect application of the law on administrative responsibility.
Unreasonably rejected a competitive application for participation in public procurement
The court terminated the proceedings on the basis of part 1 of Article 69 of the Administrative Code due to the expiration of the limitation period for bringing a person to administrative responsibility. Meanwhile, the court's conclusions do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Kurchatov City Court of the East Kazakhstan region in respect of U. under parts 6-2 and 6-3 of Article 167 of the Administrative Code, and resumed proceedings. The case was sent for a new hearing to the same court in a different composition on the following grounds. It follows from the case file that the bids of potential suppliers were rejected by the tender commission on May 16, 2012. The fact of rejection of applications was revealed on March 12, 2013. The Financial Control Inspectorate for the East Kazakhstan region initiated an administrative case on March 12, 2013 and sent it to the specialized administrative court of Semey on April 04, 2013, after 24 days. By virtue of the requirements of part 4-1 of Article 69 of the Administrative Code, the term for imposing an administrative penalty for an administrative offense is suspended from the moment the case is referred to the courts. The calculation of these time limits is resumed in cases when the case is returned to the body authorized to initiate cases of administrative offenses in order to eliminate deficiencies. By the ruling of the specialized administrative court of the city of Semey dated April 17, 2013, the case was sent for consideration to the Kurchatov City Court. On May 16, 2013, the Kurchatov City Court returned the case to the Financial Control Inspectorate for the East Kazakhstan region to eliminate the shortcomings. The inspection received the case only on May 27, 2013. After the deficiencies were eliminated, the inspection sent the case to the court again on May 28 and received it on June 12, 2013. In this regard, the case was out of court for 27 days.
Thus, less than five years have passed since the commission of the administrative offense and before the court accepted the case, and more than two months have passed since its discovery and referral to court. Consequently, the deadline for bringing U. to administrative responsibility has not expired. According to paragraph 21 of the Supreme Court's normative Resolution No. 18 of November 26, 2004 "On certain issues of the application of Legislation on administrative offenses by courts", in the event of unjustified termination of proceedings on an administrative offense, courts authorized to review decisions on administrative offenses are not entitled to examine evidence and can only cancel the contested judicial act, resume to proceed with the case and send it for a new hearing. In accordance with subparagraph 2) of Article 665 of the Administrative Code, the basis for the cancellation or amendment of the decision in the case of an administrative offense is the incorrect application of the law on administrative responsibility.
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
