The government commission on legislative activities will review a draft amendment to the Code of Administrative Offenses on March 31, according to which protocols with errors will no longer be grounds for case dismissal, reports «Kommersant».
The amendments were developed by the Ministry of Justice following a ruling by the Constitutional Court, which last October found several provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses unconstitutional. The subject of the dispute was a protocol lacking the signature of an official, which led a magistrate to deem the document inadmissible as evidence. The Constitutional Court decided that this allowed the offender to avoid punishment. The court's decision stated that these errors cannot always be corrected, as the official who drafted the protocol may not always be able to appear in court, for example, due to illness or resignation.
The current law states that upon identifying serious errors in protocol drafting, the judge must terminate the proceedings. As noted by «Kommersant», protocols are often the only evidence in administrative cases, so the amendments could further reduce the number of acquittals, which currently stand at only 5% in cases of individual violations and 9% in administrative disputes with businesses.
As a result, the Ministry of Justice proposes giving officials three days to correct errors in protocols. The explanatory note from the department mentions not only the signatures of officials but also errors in the name and surname of the person for whom the protocol is drafted, and the absence of the date and time when the alleged offense occurred.
Additionally, it is proposed to return case materials for revision in cases of incorrect qualification of the actions of the person being held accountable.
However, back in 2020, the position of the Supreme Court was diametrically opposed: at that time, the administrative disputes panel of the Supreme Court overturned lower court decisions, recognizing that violations in document processing (correction of dates and absence of signatures) were grounds for this. The administrative body is not entitled to unilaterally and arbitrarily draft or amend protocols, the Supreme Court noted at the time.