Repetition of an administrative offense

Identical repetition is recognized as the commission of two or more administrative offenses by a person within a year after the imposition of an administrative penalty for the same offense, if this repeated commission of an offense is a qualifying feature 2.

The following characteristics of identical repetition follow from this definition:

1) the person commits an offense repeatedly;

2) the offenses are identical;

3) a repeated offense is committed within a year after the imposition of an administrative penalty for the same offense;

4) repetition is a qualifying feature of an offense 1 .

Repeated commission of an administrative offense is the commission of another, secondary offense. Repetition presupposes the presence of a previously committed administrative offense. A repeated offense must not only be provided for by one article of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offences, but identical with the first. This sign is clearly indicated, as a rule, in the second part of the article with the words: “same violations”, “same violation”, “same action”. In the case when it is necessary to summarize several offenses provided for not in one, but in different parts of the article, then, for example, the following entry is used: “Violations provided for in parts one and two of this article” (Part 3 of Article 18.16 of the Administrative Code) 2.

At the same time, please note that identical repetition in accordance with Article 18.16 will be present when the repeated offense corresponds to the offense provided for in one part of the article. Thus, according to the same article 18.16, for identical repetition it is required that the repeated offense complies with part 1 if the first is committed in violation of the same part, and if the first is committed in violation of part 2, then the second must also violate this part.

It is clear that what has been said applies only to those articles of the Special Part in which repetition acts as a generalization of different types of offenses contained in one article, similar to Article 18.16. There cannot be identical repetition if the first offense was committed in violation of part 1 of Article 18.16, and the second - after being brought to administrative responsibility in violation of part 2 of the said article. In this case, there is no identity of administrative offenses, despite the fact that they are in the same article of the Special Part. The absence of the identity in question, of course, is also important for resolving the issue of bringing to administrative liability.

The third sign is specific, inherent only in identical repetition - it is the commission of a repeated offense within a year after the imposition of an administrative penalty for the same offense 1 . The imposition of an administrative penalty for the first offense means that the competent authority or official has issued a resolution indicating a specific measure of responsibility and it has been communicated in the manner prescribed by law to the guilty person. An offense committed by the person brought to justice at any time after he received the specified information will be considered repeated: at the same hour, day, the next day, etc. For the existence of identical repetition, factors such as the person’s intention to appeal the decision and the appeal of the decision do not play a role. It is another matter if the decision to impose an administrative penalty is cancelled.

The sign “imposition of an administrative penalty for the same offense” distinguishes identical repetition from other types of repetition of an administrative offense and from a set of offenses 2 . Repetition as a qualifying feature is that it is specially stipulated, mainly in the second part of the article of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offenses with the following words written: “committed repeatedly.” These words occur after the above words “the same acts.”

Identical repetition does not apply to a circumstance aggravating administrative liability, since administrative liability for a repeated offense is established in the article itself. For a repeated offense, administrative penalties are provided in the form of a fine, and it is always more severe than for the first offense. Its size is usually doubled.

The need for identical repetition is explained primarily by the need to increase administrative liability for repeated commission of an offense within a year after the imposition of an administrative penalty for the first.

Repeated traffic violation

Good afternoon, dear reader.

This article will talk about what it means to repeatedly violate traffic rules , as well as the time frame during which the driver can be held more strictly liable.

As a rule, repeated violation of traffic rules entails a more severe punishment, but it is not imposed for any violation of the rules.

Violations for which “repetition” is taken into account

So, punishment for repeated violation of traffic rules can be applied in the following cases:

Note. All articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses listed in the third column of the table (for the first violation) provide for punishment only in the form of an administrative fine or deprivation of rights. Therefore, further in this article only repeated violations after a fine and deprivation of rights will be considered.

How long does it take for a violation to be considered repeated?

To understand what a repeated traffic violation means, you should consider one more concept:

Article 4.6. The period during which a person is considered subject to administrative punishment

A person who has been imposed an administrative penalty for committing an administrative offense is considered subject to this punishment from the date the decision on the imposition of an administrative penalty enters into legal force until the expiration of one year from the date of completion of the execution of this decision.

Thus, a violation is repeated if it is committed between:

issuing a resolution to impose an administrative penalty;
completion of 1 year from the date of completion of execution of the resolution.

Once the “repetition” period begins, everything is simple. A decision on imposing a fine is made by a traffic police officer or a judge, a decision on deprivation of rights is made only by a judge.

With the ending, the situation is more complicated, because... you need to find out from what point to count the year:

In case of payment of a fine , the period is counted from the date of payment.
In case of deprivation of a license , the period is counted at the moment when the driver collects the license from the traffic police.

Note 1 . If the driver does not pay the fine, then the term will be calculated according to a more complex scheme, discussed in a separate article:

Note 2 . If the driver, after deprivation, does not surrender his license to the traffic police, then in case of violation it will be considered repeated. The same applies to the end of the deprivation period. It is the moment when the driver receives the license in hand (after passing the exams) that matters. Only from this day 1 year begins to pass.

Thus, if a driver is caught committing the same rule violation within a year from the date of “completion” of the administrative penalty, he will receive a more severe punishment.

Examples of repeat violations

Let's look at a few examples:

Example 1. On April 30, 2018, Andrey drives into the oncoming lane for the first time. The trial took place on May 15, 2018. A penalty of 5,000 rubles was imposed (part 4 of article 12.15 of the Administrative Code). Andrey paid the fine on May 30, 2018.

If Andrey drives into the oncoming lane again on September 1, 2018, he will no longer get away with a fine. The punishment for him will be deprivation of rights for 1 year (part 5 of article 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses).

If Andrey drives into oncoming traffic on May 31, 2019 or later, the punishment will not be repeated, because More than a year has passed.

If Andrey drives into the oncoming lane on May 7, 2018, the violation will not be considered a repeat violation, because the trial has not yet taken place and no ruling has been made.

Example 2. On April 30, 2018, Bronislav exceeded the speed limit by 41 km/h and received a fine of 1,000 rubles (part 3 of article 12.9 of the Administrative Code). The resolution was drawn up by the traffic police officer at the scene of the violation. The fine was paid on the same day.

If Bronislav commits a violation before April 30, 2019, it will be repeated.

Example 3. On April 30, 2018, Vadim was caught by traffic police officers while intoxicated.

On May 5, 2018, Vadim again found himself driving while intoxicated, but since the trial in the first case has not yet taken place, the violation is considered as the first.

The trial in the first case took place on May 20, 2018, and a 14-month deprivation of rights was imposed. Starting from May 20, violations are considered repeated.

The trial in the second case took place on June 1, 2018, and a 16-month deprivation of rights was imposed.

Vadim was in no hurry to submit his license to the traffic police and took it only on July 12, 2018. The period of deprivation is calculated from this date.

The period of deprivation ended on January 12, 2021, but Vadim was unable to pass the exam the first time. As a result, he received his license only on February 8, 2021. Within a year after this date, violations will be considered repeated.

Those. in this example, the violations are repeated from May 20, 2018 to February 8, 2022.

I am sure that the examples allowed you to understand what repeated traffic violations mean and in what cases it may occur. However, if you still have questions, write them in the comments to the article.

Repeated administrative offense

The concept and meaning of a repeated administrative offense

One of the goals of administrative liability is to suppress the commission of repeated administrative torts both by the person held accountable (private prevention) and by other persons (general prevention).

Repeated administrative offense is an administrative offense committed by an individual or legal entity during the period when it is considered administratively punished.

Repeated commission of an administrative tort can be considered in the following aspects:

as a circumstance aggravating liability;
as a qualifying sign of an administrative tort;
as a circumstance taken into account when imposing an administrative penalty.

Repetition as an aggravating circumstance

Clause 2, Part 1, Art. 4.3 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses includes the repeated commission of an administrative tort as aggravating circumstances.

To apply this rule, the following set of legal facts is necessary:

Try asking your teachers for help

the repeated offense must be similar to the first tort (subject criterion);
the person who committed an administrative tort must already have been subjected to administrative punishment (personal criterion).

The criterion of homogeneity of primary and repeated administrative offenses causes controversy in judicial practice. Thus, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considers homogeneous offenses that have a common generic object, for example, road safety (clause 16 of the resolution of March 24, 2005 No. 3). At the same time, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation calls only offenses provided for by one norm of the code homogeneous (clause 19.1 of Resolution No. 10 of June 2, 2004).

Repetition as a qualifying feature of an offense

Based on the principle of the inadmissibility of being held accountable twice for one offense, the provisions of paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Art. 4.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation cannot be applied if the repeated commission of an administrative tort has already been taken into account as a sign of a qualified offense (Part 2 of Article 4.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Ask a question to the experts and get
an answer within 15 minutes!

Analysis of administrative offenses showed that repetition can be:

qualifying feature (for example, repeated violation of hunting and fishing rules, transport safety requirements);
a particularly qualifying feature (for example, repeated violation of requirements in construction, requirements in the field of using cash register equipment).

Indicating the increased harmfulness of a repeated act, this sign entails the imposition of a more severe administrative penalty or an increase in the lower and (or) upper limits of punishment.

A feature of the legal technique is the indication in some articles of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for the period during which an administrative tort is recognized as repeated (for example, part 2 of article 8.45). Moreover, this instruction is logically redundant, since the period of administrative punishment coincides with this period (1 year).

Repetition as a circumstance taken into account when assigning punishment

The specific meaning of repetition in the administrative tort process is that the commission of a repeated offense allows the application of those administrative penalties that cannot be assigned during the initial prosecution.

So, according to Art. 3.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, offenders using it due to disability cannot be deprived of a special right (the right to drive a vehicle). If these persons repeatedly commit the acts specified in Part 3 of Art. 3.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation are torts in the field of road traffic; punishment may be applied to them in the form of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for the period provided for in the relevant article of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Still haven't found the answer
to your question?

Just write what you
need help

Repeated commission of an administrative offense

Repeated commission of an administrative offense is an aggravating factor for serious unlawful acts provided for in those Art. Code of Administrative Offenses, violation of which entails a threat to human life and health, as well as damage to personal, public or state property. Most often, punishments for these violations entail not only serious administrative penalties, but also other disciplinary measures provided for by the Code of Administrative Offences.

If we talk about Chapter 12, which provides for liability for offenses in the field of compliance with traffic rules, then the following articles fall under aggravating factors, for which repeated fines are issued by the traffic police:

Driving a vehicle that has not passed state registration within the time limits established by law is the same as driving a car with an expired maintenance ticket.
Exceeding the established speed limit on roads by more than 60 km/h.

The driver ignores road signs when driving through unregulated intersections.
The driver ignoring the prohibiting traffic light signal, as well as the corresponding gesture of the traffic controller.
Violation of the rules prescribed by road markings and prohibitory signs when driving in a lane intended for the opposite movement of vehicles.
Violations of the rules for choosing the direction of movement when driving on a one-way road intended for the flow of vehicles in the opposite direction.
Movement of a truck with a permissible weight of more than 12 tons without paying a tariff for use and causing damage to the roadway intended for all road users.
If the driver allowed himself to leave the vehicle at the scene of an accident.

Note! Before the introduction of the latest amendments in 2015 for driving while intoxicated, when a repeated similar offense is automatically considered a crime and falls under Article 164.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, this act, committed again, was also punishable by more serious administrative penalties.

Signs of a repeated administrative offense

The repetition of an administrative offense is prescribed in all parts of the articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses, except for the first, and can be seen in the unlawful acts of the driver or owner of the vehicle if there are a number of signs indicating this:

In case the unlawful act took place under the same article of the Code of Administrative Offences.
If, during one driver’s arrest, two or more offenses under various articles were revealed at once.
All illegal acts must be committed by the same person. For example, if a traffic police inspector detains a vehicle in which a driver who is intoxicated is allowed to drive, and the owner of the car is next to him, then administrative punishment will be taken both for the driver who allowed drunk driving and for the passenger, as for the person who handed over control to a drunk driver. In this case, both persons in the car will be deprived of their driver’s licenses by court decision, but each for their own type of offense, which does not allow the principle of repetition to be applied for either the driver or the passenger.

If, in such a situation, the car was detained for driving into the oncoming lane in the wrong place, and at the beginning of procedural actions against the driver it was revealed that he was intoxicated, then the principle of repetition can be applied to this person as an aggravating factor.

In the absence of these signs, the repetition of an administrative offense cannot be recognized, and a more lenient clause of the article of the Code of Administrative Offenses is applied to the person, as for the person who violated it for the first time.

Detention of a vehicle for gross violation.

Important! Only an offense that is committed within one year after the commission of the first one can be recognized as a repeat or recidivism, but only on the condition that both offenses were identical in severity. This means that if at different times during the year the driver violated the speed limit by more than 60 km/h, for which he was deprived of his license for a period of 4 months, and another 8 months after the violation committed an illegal act by driving into oncoming traffic , then it is impossible to apply the circumstance of repetition to such violations.

Deprivation of driver's license by court.

Determination of the fact of a repeated administrative offense by a law enforcement officer

When catching an offender on a highway, not a single traffic police inspector initially knows how many times in a row this offense occurs. However, in recent years, as a rule, every detained driver is checked for violations in a database that stores almost all the information about each illegal act committed, linked to the series and number of the driver’s license or the state registration number of the car.

Thus, if a motorist was deprived of the right to drive a car for some period, but during the period of deprivation, which became effective from the moment of the court decision on the violation, he made himself a duplicate driver’s license, for example, in another region of the Russian Federation, then this driver will still be displayed in the database as not allowed to manage. A protocol of misconduct under Article 12.7 will be drawn up against such a driver as for a driver deprived of his license. If this driver comes to the attention of the inspectors, disciplinary punishment will be applied to him in accordance with one of the above articles in case of repeated violation.

This means that drivers, aware of the ease of identifying a repeat offense, will never try to get behind the wheel and return a lost driving license before the due date.

The time of entry into force of a court decision on an administrative offense can often play into the hands of systematic violators, since if he was detained again during the trial for the initial offense, which implied deprivation of rights, then this detention a second time cannot be interpreted as a repeat one due to the fact that that the execution of the punishment under the first has not yet entered into force.

Fines and disciplinary action for repeat offenses

For any violation of articles of Chapter 12 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which presupposes the application of the fact of repetition of an administrative offense, a more severe punishment is provided than for the primary act. In particular, for those articles described above, as a rule, it is assumed that a double financial penalty is imposed, described in the same article, but for the initial violation, as well as a repeated fine, is always accompanied by the deprivation of a driver’s license for a period of 6 months. up to 3 years. Financial penalties usually do not fall below 5.0 thousand rubles.

If the driver is detained for an offense during the second term of deprivation of rights, the punishments are summed up, which can lead to lifelong suspension from driving by adding up all terms of deprivation for violations that the driver committed.

Measures that a driver should take to avoid punishment for a repeat offense

In order to prevent the application of aggravating circumstances for repeated offenses, the driver should not drive during the initial deprivation, and for a year after the end of this period, try not to violate traffic rules. This means that after the specified period, all possible consequences of the initial period of deprivation will be removed, and the aggravating amendment to the article of the Code of Administrative Offenses will be nullified, and in case of violation of the same article for which the driver was once deprived of a driver’s license, the punishment will be imposed as for the primary offense illegal act.

In the event that a driver was detained for a gross misconduct under an article that had previously appeared during his experience, but he is absolutely convinced that at least 1 year has passed since the penalty came into force, then such a driver should carefully prepare for the trial and find case materials on a past administrative offense. These materials can help prove the expiration of the sentence for the initial deprivation if, when analyzing the current case, the court tries to detect signs of repetition.

Repetition of an administrative offense and release from liability

Dear colleagues, greetings!

I would like to discuss the following question.

Some articles of the special part of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provide for the release of a violator from administrative liability upon voluntary elimination of the consequences of the violation, commission of other actions prescribed by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, or under certain conditions.

Article 6.9. Consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances without a doctor’s prescription or new potentially dangerous psychoactive substances

. Note. A person who voluntarily applies to a medical organization for treatment in connection with the consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances without a doctor’s prescription is exempt from administrative liability for this offense.

Article 12.21.3. Failure to comply with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation on payment of a fee to compensate for damage caused to public roads of federal significance by vehicles with a permissible maximum weight of over 12 tons

1. A person who has committed an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 or 2 of this article, when entering the territory of the Russian Federation, is exempt from administrative liability if, at the time of consideration of the case regarding the specified administrative offense, the length of the distance actually covered by the vehicle without paying a fee was no more than fifty kilometers after crossing the State Border of the Russian Federation and if payment for compensation for damage caused to public roads of federal significance by such a vehicle is made in the prescribed manner.

Article 14.5. Sale of goods, performance of work or provision of services in the absence of established information or non-use of cash register equipment in cases established by federal laws

.
Notes: Note. A person who voluntarily declared to the tax authority in writing about his non-use of cash register equipment in cases established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on the use of cash register equipment, or about his use of cash register equipment that does not meet the established requirements, or about his use cash register equipment in violation of the procedure for registering cash register equipment, the procedure, terms and conditions for re-registration of cash register equipment and the procedure for its use established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on the use of cash register equipment, and voluntarily fulfilled the obligation before the decision was made in the case of an administrative offense, for non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of which the person is brought to administrative responsibility and is released from administrative liability for an administrative offense. ..

At the same time, some of these articles provide for more severe punishment for “ repeated violation”, for example: Part 2 of Art. 12.21.3, part 3 art. 14.5 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The next question arises.

The offense was committed for the first time, the offender, based on the norm of the Note, is exempted from administrative liability.

Should the next offense committed by him be qualified as “repeated” and, accordingly, should the part of the article of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which provides for punishment specifically for a repeated offense, be applied?

I have a certain dilemma in this matter, although in general at first glance it seemed that, regardless of the fact of exemption from liability, such a violation should be qualified as repeated, since when the violation was committed for the first time, the composition was present in any case, the violation took place regardless of the fact of release from liability. But. (I will share in the discussion :))

Thank you in advance for your points of view!

5875
rating

Preparation and conduct of cases in court. Execution of court decisions

Practical skills of a lawyer. Training

Advanced training: cross-border trade

Comments (7)

It may confuse clause 2, part 1, art. 4.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which states that repeat offenses are those committed during the period when a person is considered subject to administrative punishment for a [similar] offense in accordance with Art. 4.6 of this Code, that is, from the date of entry into force of the decision on the imposition of an administrative penalty until the expiration of one year from the date of completion of execution of this decision. However, here we are talking about only one form of repetition - relapse.

The second form of repetition is a real totality (its presence follows from Part 1 of Article 4.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation on the rules for sentencing for several offenses, which is also akin to plurality [and repetition]; compare Articles 17 and 18 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), which really is not associated with the fact of bringing to administrative responsibility. However, in your case it will not be, including because the real totality is formed in the case when one resolution imposes administrative penalties for various administrative offenses (otherwise it indicates prosecution by two or more resolutions for two or more individual offenses, there is no plurality).

The ideal set (parts 2 and 3 of Article 4.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) does not form repetition for obvious reasons.

Thus, only a special recidivism remains: prosecution under a more qualified part of the article or an article for a second identical act is possible only when one has been held responsible for the first (Clause 2, Part 1, Article 4.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). The doctrine is justified by the fact that it is impossible to impose a more severe punishment for a similar act until one has been held accountable for the same act in the usual amount (the ladder of administrative penalties, which is also characteristic of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - in Chapter 3 they are arranged from the least severe to the most ); Of course, if the period of attraction has expired, a relapse will not occur at all.

This means that in your case, if a decision was made to terminate proceedings in a case of an administrative offense in connection with exemption from administrative liability, the commission of an identical act does not constitute a repetition.

By the way, our Russian rules are very meager (you need to remember the theory), but in the CIS countries they are spelled out.
For example [comparing with criminal law], it is precisely noted that repetition does not constitute acts for which a person was exempted from liability (Part 4 of Article 32 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Meanwhile, similar rules also existed previously - before the abolition of Art. 16 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which dealt with such a form of repetition as the repetition of crimes (in fact, it was either an aggregate or a relapse), also stipulated that repetition would not be formed if the person was released from liability (Part 2).