Express assessment of business prospects

Leaving the scene of an accident (Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation)

When a traffic accident occurs, the driver has obligations established by law. The Traffic Rules indicate the measures of driver behavior in this case, and Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation specifies responsibility for violating legal requirements.

When an accident occurs, the driver of the vehicle involved in the situation is obliged to stop and remain at the scene of the accident until road officials arrive.

His actions:

1. Stop without moving the car from the scene of the accident, even if it partially interferes with other road users. If there is a traffic jam, the best way out in this situation is to organize a detour. This way you can preserve all the evidence and evidence.
2. As with any emergency stop, you must turn on your hazard lights and put up the appropriate sign. The sign is installed at a distance from transport of 30 meters (for highways, routes outside the city) or 15 meters (within populated areas).
3. Call the traffic police, an ambulance if necessary.
4. Provide assistance to the victims. If necessary, it is necessary to transport the wounded on your own to the nearest hospital using your own transport, after which you should return to the scene of the incident.

If these requirements are not met, the traffic police officers are not called, and the participant in the accident leaves, this fact is a violation and entails administrative liability under Article 12.27 of the current Code (part two).

In what cases is it necessary to comply with the above instructions?

If, while a vehicle is moving, an event occurs that results in injury or death to pedestrians, drivers of other vehicles, damage to other vehicles or buildings, structures, structures, cargo, such an incident legally requires calling representatives of the traffic police. Leaving a seat thoughtlessly in such cases is fraught with serious consequences.

The legislative framework

As already indicated, the basis for establishing liability is:

• Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, namely part one, article 12.27;
• Traffic rules, paragraphs 2.5, 2.6 and 2.6.1.

The second part of Article 12.27 provides for cases that exclude the establishment of liability for an offense due to leaving a place on the road where an accident occurred. An offense is recognized if the driver’s actions contradict paragraph 2.5 of the traffic rules. In 2007, on July 24, the Law of the Russian Federation introduced amendments to Article 12.27 - a third part was added, which specifies penalties for taking alcohol and drugs that alter the driver’s condition after an incident. The third part was amended on July 23, 2013 (Federal Law No. 196).

In practice, most often the drivers involved in the incident try to come to an agreement, since after filing a case and contacting the traffic police, this will be impossible to do. Even taking into account mitigating circumstances, when the guilty party pays for repairs for the damage caused, this will not cancel the fact of deprivation of rights or arrest, since according to the law, after filing an application by the injured party, an administrative investigation is initiated and liability arises in accordance with the Code of Administrative Offenses.

Article 27.5 part 1 states that it is necessary to remain at the scene of the incident for 3 hours. If 3 hours have passed since the call to the traffic police, you can safely leave, after making another call and pointing out the fact that the inspector has not arrived. In this case, the charges may be completely dropped, but it is advisable to come to a mutual agreement with the injured or guilty party in writing.

What to do if people were injured in an accident?

Clause 2.6 of the Traffic Regulations establishes the actions that the driver must take if there is a collision with a pedestrian. These actions include calling the police and emergency medical services. In an emergency, the injured person must be transported to the hospital. And although the Rules indicate that the shipment can be carried out by passing transport, more often this happens by transport that was involved in a road accident.

According to the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, such abandonment is not regarded as a violation if, after leaving the victim, the driver of this vehicle returned to the scene of the incident. Important! When registering a wounded person at the hospital, you must leave your information at the post:

• vehicle registration number;
• data from your driver's license or passport.

By recording personal data in a medical institution along with the time of arrival, the fact of malicious leaving the scene of an accident will be excluded during the trial.

Who will be punished?

According to the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (Chapter 12), as well as the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, paragraph 1 (Resolution No. 18 of September 27, 2006, Resolution No. 23 of November 11, 2008, Resolution No. 2 of February 9, 2012), the driver is face:

• driving a vehicle (with or without a license);
• driving training.

The basis for initiating a case for leaving the scene of an accident is a combination of the following signs:

1. a) the established fact of an accident;
2. b) the identified identity of the driver;
3. c) participant in the incident;
4. d) the injured party or the fact of damage;
5. e) the fact of leaving the scene of an accident;
6. f) a statement from the victim.

The absence of at least one point is grounds not to open a case regarding the driver leaving the place where the traffic accident occurred.

Punishment

The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation establishes that if the driver has not fulfilled his duties prescribed in the Traffic Rules, he is subject to:

• deprivation of a driver's license (period from 1 to 1.5 years);
• or administrative arrest (up to 15 days, applied in no more than 5% of cases);

Many people, being in a state of shock, afraid of responsibility, or having suffered great stress, may take alcohol, sedatives, or illegal drugs to calm down. If after an accident, having left the scene of the accident without undergoing examination, the driver took prohibited drugs (psychotropic, narcotic) or alcohol, the following penalties are imposed, approved by paragraph 2.7 of the current traffic rules and part 3 of the article of the Code:

• administrative fine (30,000 rubles);
• deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle (for a period of 1.5-2 years).

You can take any drugs or alcoholic beverages only when the police decide to exempt the driver from undergoing examination or after undergoing this procedure in a medical institution. Violation of these rules entails serious liability established by law.

For leaving the scene of an accident, Article 12.27 provides for severe punishment, which can only be avoided with the help of an experienced lawyer.

Leaving the scene of an accident is punishable by law in 98% of cases, so in case of a rash act, we recommend enlisting the support of auto lawyers. The sooner an appeal is made to an expert, the greater the chance of incurring a minimum punishment. We guarantee high-quality protection and a forward-looking strategy in which your rights will be reliably protected.

Despite the strictness of the law, leaving the scene of an accident is not always considered a violation of the Traffic Rules and falls under Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

Exceptions to the rules

The following situations may lead to leaving the scene of an accident:

• In case of an emergency, it is necessary to transport the injured person to the hospital without waiting for the ambulance to arrive.
• If during an emergency stop the roadway is completely blocked and the movement of other vehicles is impossible.

Article 12.27 in the above cases acquits the driver, but only when all the rules of behavior in these situations are followed.

Before leaving, at the place where you left it is necessary to find several people (eyewitnesses) from whom you can obtain contact information and address. Witnesses must record the fact of the accident on paper with their signatures, where they must first draw a diagram of the location of the transport before the car is removed from the road. It would be useful to take a few photos and shoot a video. Before leaving the scene of an accident, you must call the traffic police.

It is also legally permitted to leave the scene of an accident when both drivers were able to agree. In this situation, it is mandatory to record the fact of the incident. In this case, it is important to correctly draw a diagram of the location of cars at the time of an accident on the road with markings, indicate the location of houses or other buildings. After this, both or more participants in the road accident must contact the traffic police post to inform the service about the incident.

It is allowed to leave the scene of an accident if the drivers involved in the accident were able to resolve the dispute on their own. In this case, it is allowed to leave the place if the damage is minor and does not exceed 25,000 rubles. At such a site of an accident, the article has an exception and does not require fines and administrative penalties from persons involved in the accident. To avoid legal disputes in the future, it would be useful for both drivers to draw up two copies of a diagram of the accident scene and sign a receipt for compensation indicating its preliminary assessment. Next comes the repair of vehicles, payment for which is carried out either from the drivers’ personal funds or by an insurance company under the European protocol.

An exception to Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation 12.27 is considered if the driver’s actions caused material damage (damage to public or private property, another vehicle, cargo), but the driver did not notice the incident itself. The responsible person is not punished for leaving the scene of an accident if the fact of his unintentional abandonment is proven. In cases where there is evidence that the driver stopped during an accident, getting out of the car, assessing the condition of the car and the scene of the accident, and continuing the route is considered malicious abandonment.

The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation has many exceptions that can be used when building a defense for the guilty person or petitioning for termination of legal proceedings in the case of leaving the scene of an accident.

Limitation periods

Even if for some reason there was a hiding from the scene of the incident, you will still have to bear responsibility under the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. To this end, police officers will try, who, according to their job descriptions, will conduct an administrative investigation until the guilty person is found.

The Code of Administrative Offenses establishes a limitation period of 1 year. Part 1, paragraph 6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (Article 24.5) states that proceedings cannot be initiated in a case of violating road rules and leaving the place where an accident occurred if the statute of limitations has expired. Also, according to this Code, the proceedings in this case must be terminated if the statute of limitations has expired. BUT! Paragraph 5 of this article indicates the possibility and procedure for suspending the statute of limitations that the court may use when making a decision on administrative liability.

“Leaving the Scene of an Accident” will find a way to avoid deprivation of liberty or a driver’s license, large fines, if you chose to flee the scene of the accident in a state of panic.

How is an offense proven?

If a collision, run-over, accident occurs or minor damage is caused while vehicles are moving on the road or adjacent areas, and the driver continues driving without reacting to the situation, the actions of the road service employees are as follows (if they were called by the injured party):

1. At the scene of an accident, work is being carried out to collect information about the incident from eyewitnesses, to confiscate photos and video data from witnesses who filmed the situation on a phone or other information medium (camera, recorder).
2. A document is filled out in which the victims describe the current situation in full detail, diagrams are drawn and other data related to the accident is indicated;
3. A violation report is filled out.

After the work done by the traffic police directly at the scene of the accident, Article 12.27 of the Code can be applied to the offender after an administrative case has been initiated. After this, search work begins, the culprit is identified, and his actual place of residence is determined. If there is information about the vehicle, the car or other type of transport is put on the operational wanted list.

The filing of an application for an offense by the victim and the abandonment of the scene of the accident by the culprit are prerequisites that will soon develop into detention, trial and punishment. To prevent this from happening, when leaving the scene of an accident, it is better to enlist the support of an experienced auto lawyer who can competently create a defensive strategy and represent your interests in court.

Is it possible not to be held liable for leaving the scene of an accident?

Leaving the scene of an accident may be reclassified by the court. According to the Code of Administrative Offenses (Article 12.27 part 2) there are exceptions in which the driver is not responsible for leaving the scene of an accident. In judicial practice, the concept of extreme necessity is widely used, when the driver is allowed to leave, realizing that he has caused a collision, a collision or an accident. When leaving the place where the incident occurred, the driver independently determines the degree of emergency. Cases where the harm caused during an accident was less than what was prevented are justified in court.

For example, someone else's car being scratched while overtaking is less harmful than a woman giving birth or a person with an attack of illness being transported to the maternity ward, which can be fatal. If the driver’s actions were carried out out of extreme necessity, Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses does not provide for penalties for leaving the scene of an accident.

By contacting us, experienced lawyers will do everything possible to prove:

• the driver’s non-involvement in the accident or his ignorance of the incident due to the insignificance of the damage caused;
• the insignificant degree of the incident itself, which may reduce the penalty;
• absence of a violation under the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

When studying evidence, lawyers can refute the objectivity and reliability of the data on which the accusation is based in court. It is very important how soon you contact a lawyer after an accident. Please note that after leaving the scene of an accident, the chances of your license being revoked increase with each passing hour.

Extenuating circumstances

If the scene of the accident was abandoned, but the driver, who realized it in time, quickly took action and turned to a car lawyer, you can count on mitigating circumstances with the right defense strategy. To them, according to Art. 4.2 Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation includes:

• repentance, confession;
• voluntary contacting the road patrol service;
• assistance in conducting an investigation into a case of administrative violation;
• preventing the consequences of an accident;
• voluntary compensation for damage;

Also mitigating is the state of passion and minority.

Features of the work of our lawyers

Leaving the scene of an accident is a reason for legal proceedings in the case of a traffic accident and leaving the place where it occurred. When you contact our company, a thorough study of the administrative material received by the road service authorities during the investigation and procedural actions when recording an accident begins. When researching the data, inconsistencies may be discovered, incorrect documentation that contradicts the legislative framework of the Russian Federation, and other inconsistencies that serve as grounds for appealing the material and declaring it unlawful.

The available material may not always fully reflect the composition of the violation, the events and the circumstances leading to it. To do this, the package of documents must contain the following:

• report;
• witness statements;
• accident scene inspection report;
• vehicle inspection report;
• photographic and video materials;

The factual and evidence base often has gaps, which in the hands of professional auto lawyers can be your salvation and the preservation of your driving license.

During a thorough check, a positive outcome is often influenced by the specified time recorded in the documents related to the case file. It is also possible to build an effective defense in the absence of technical expertise or forensic medical examination of the victims and those who brought charges. In cases of damage to vehicles (scratches or dents), only technical expertise can be objective material on which the court must rely. Other conclusions, for example, from a traffic police inspector, are not a legal basis for considering the fact of damage. The lawyers of our team know all the nuances and subtleties of procedural cases.

There are situations when it is impossible to completely exonerate the culprit of an accident who fled the scene of the accident. In such cases, the goal of the lawyer’s work is to minimize the punishment. A qualified specialist will help determine the adequacy of the assessment of damage caused to another vehicle, cargo or structures, and human health.

Why is this necessary? Even if the claim is satisfied in favor of the plaintiff and the insurance company fully covers compensation for material damage, in the practice of insurance companies it is not uncommon for insurance companies to demand compensation for these payments from the perpetrator. Since 2002, compensation for insurance payments from a driver who fled the scene of a traffic accident has become legal.

If you escaped out of ignorance or intentionally, and do not want the serious consequences provided for by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, call us, and we will be able to solve the problem with minimal damage to you.

Case No. 5-1008/16

Protocol 35 AR 595010

RESOLUTION

And about. Magistrate Judge of the Vologda Region for judicial district No. 5 S.V. Morozov,

Having considered the case of an administrative offense provided for in Part 2 of Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to

“data seized”, “data seized” year of birth, native “data seized” region, registered and living at the address: Vologda st. Fryazinovskaya, “data seized”,

installed:

05/22/2016 at 15:00. 30 min. at house 39 on the street. Blagoveshchenskaya, Vologda “data seized”, while driving a vehicle “data seized”, state. reg. sign “data seized”/35, in violation of paragraphs. 2.5 of the traffic rules, left the scene of a traffic accident in which she was a participant.

“data seized” explained at the court hearing that she did not notice the touch and did not know that she had become a participant in an accident.

Having heard the arguments “data confiscated” and having examined the materials of the administrative case, the court comes to the following conclusions.

According to Art. 12.27 Part 2 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, leaving by a driver, in violation of the Traffic Rules, the scene of a traffic accident in which he was a participant, entails deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of one to one and a half years or administrative arrest for a period of up to 15 days .

In the protocol on the administrative offense and in her explanation “data seized” she indicated that she did not feel contact with the car “data seized”, the state registration number “data seized”/51, belonging to “data seized”.

According to the vehicle inspection protocol available in the administrative case materials, abrasions, scratches, and chips in the paintwork of the front bumper on the right side and the front right fender were found on the car. Based on the photo table, it follows that the indicated damage actually occurs.

The insignificance of the existing damage to the car “data seized”, state registration number “data seized”/51, confirms the arguments “data seized” that she did not feel the collision.

At the same time, the judge was not presented with sufficient evidence that the “data seized” knew about the fact of the collision and intentionally or carelessly left the scene of the traffic accident, that is, there is no evidence in the case that she had direct intent to leave the scene of the accident in which she was a participant.

Based on the above, in the actions “data seized” there is no corpus delicti of an administrative offense under Art. 12.27 Part 2 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences.

In accordance with parts 1 and 2 of Art. 2.2 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, an administrative offense is recognized as committed intentionally if the person who committed it was aware of the unlawful nature of his action (inaction), foresaw its harmful consequences and desired the occurrence of such consequences or consciously allowed them, or was indifferent to them.

The presence of intent should not be assumed, but must be proven by the administrative body in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 of Art. 1.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, since bringing a person to administrative responsibility, based on Art. Art. 2.1, 2.2 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses is possible only in the presence of his guilt, no matter in what form it manifests itself, since its absence is one of the circumstances precluding proceedings in a case of an administrative offense.

In accordance with clause 2, part 1, art. 24.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, proceedings in a case of an administrative offense are subject to termination if there is no corpus delicti of an administrative offence.

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 29.9 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses in the presence of at least one of the circumstances precluding the proceedings under Art. 24.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, a resolution is issued to terminate the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense.

Under such circumstances, the judge believes that the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense in relation to “data seized” are subject to termination due to the absence of an administrative offense in her actions.

Guided by Art. Art. 24.5, 29.9 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, judge

decided:

Proceedings regarding an administrative offense under Art. 12.27 Part 2 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses in relation to “data seized” terminate for lack of an administrative offense.

The decision can be appealed to the Vologda City Court of the Vologda Region through the Magistrate of the Vologda Region for judicial district No. 5 within 10 days.

Magistrate S.V. Morozov

"Leaving the scene of an accident. Is it possible to avoid deprivation?"

Question: I accidentally hit someone else’s car (I ran into a pedestrian, a dog, etc.), didn’t notice and went about my business. What awaits me and what can I do?

Answer:

Formally, liability for such an act is provided for under Part 2 of Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

Article 12.27. Failure to fulfill duties in connection with a traffic accident

1. Failure by a driver to fulfill the duties provided for by the Traffic Rules in connection with a traffic accident in which he is a participant, except for the cases provided for in part 2 of this article, -
shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand rubles.

2. Leaving by the driver, in violation of the Traffic Rules, the scene of a traffic accident in which he was a participant -
entails deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of one to one and a half years or administrative arrest for a period of up to fifteen days.
(as amended by Federal Laws dated June 22, 2007 N 116-FZ, dated July 24, 2007 N 210-FZ)
3. Failure to comply with the requirement of the Traffic Rules to prohibit the driver from consuming alcoholic beverages, narcotic or psychotropic substances after a traffic accident in which he is involved, or after the vehicle was stopped at the request of a police officer, until an examination by an authorized official is carried out in in order to establish the state of intoxication or until an authorized official makes a decision to exempt from such an examination -
(as amended by Federal Law No. 4-FZ dated 02/07/2011)
entails deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of one and a half to two years.

Before considering the defense options, be aware that the statute of limitations for this offense is 3 months. The later you meet with the police, the better. Try not to appear at their invitations “for inspection”, “for analysis”, etc. For if you do appear, a protocol will be drawn up right away, and then the case will go to court. Sometimes in this way you can successfully avoid deprivation. Although, of course, if you are at fault, resolve the issue of compensation to the victim, so as not to spoil your karma.

In order to avoid becoming a pedestrian, there are 6 protection options

1. Try to convince the court that there is no administrative violation, since hiding from the scene of an accident occurred unintentionally
examples of judicial practice

Administrative case No. 5-хх/2010

P O S T A N O V L E N I E

On termination of proceedings in a case of an administrative offense

Zaeltsovsky District Court of the city of Novosibirsk, composed of judge Koneva Yu.A. under secretary Belonosova K.V. , with the participation of a person brought to administrative responsibility, having considered materials about the administrative offense provided for in Art. 12.27 part 2 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, in relation to L.A.V., xx JUNE 19xx YEAR OF BIRTH, native of the city of Novosibirsk, lives in the city of Novosibirsk, st. M., xxx

Installed:

L.A.V. is accused of being at 3 p.m. 05 min. APRIL 4, 2010, driving a LIAZ car xxx license plate XX xxx and driving near the house xxx on the street. K. Avenue in the Zaeltsovsky district of Novosibirsk, collided with a Toyota Corona Premium car, license plate X xxx RV 54, driven by K. A.M. ; in violation of clause 2.5 of the Traffic Rules in the Russian Federation L.A.V. failed to fulfill the duties of a driver: he left the scene of a traffic accident in which he was a participant. His actions are qualified by Art. 12.27 part 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

L.A.V. He did not agree with the offense and explained that he worked as a driver on a LIAZ bus, license plate XX 732, at PTP-1 LLC, on April 4, 2010, he was on route No. 1038 and drove the specified bus, the route also passes through Kalinin Square. In the daytime, an unknown person called him on the phone and said that he had hit a foreign car, he went to the scene of the accident, but they called him back and explained that the traffic police officers had already arrived at the scene and would call him. Returning along the route after 30-40 minutes, there was no one there. Further inspecting the car, he saw minor damage to the bumper. Since the bus is very large, 15 meters long, with a capacity of about 100 passengers and in conditions of intense traffic flow, he did not notice any traffic accident, no one gave him signals, so he had no intention of leaving the scene of the traffic accident.

Victim K.A.M. did not appear at the court hearing, was notified, asked to consider the case in his absence, insists on the explanations given to the traffic police on April 4, 2010.

The judge, after listening to the explanations of the person brought to administrative responsibility and examining the written materials of the case, finds L.A.V. guilty. in leaving the scene of a traffic accident unidentified, the proceedings on the case of an administrative offense are subject to termination for the absence of elements of an administrative offense in L.’s actions.

Thus, from the victim’s explanations given to traffic police officers on April 4, 2010, it does not follow that L.A.V. noticed the fact of a collision with the victim’s car and deliberately left the scene of the accident. From the circumstances of the incident, the diagram of the accident, the location of the damage reflected in the traffic police report, the explanations of the participants in the accident, the court found that L. was driving a passenger bus on a busy street during the day, the nature of the damage indicates that the bus hit the rear bumper when entering the roundabout tangential movement hit the front of the car. The court did not establish evidence that L. noticed, understood and was aware of the fact of the collision and causing damage and deliberately failed to fulfill the driver’s duties provided for in clause 2.5 of the Traffic Rules of the Russian Federation. The victim's explanation does not contain any indication that he was trying to attract the driver's attention. The victim himself, exercising his right, did not appear at the court hearing. In such circumstances, the court takes into account the rules of Art. 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation on the presumption of innocence and that all irremovable doubts about the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility are interpreted in his favor, and therefore the proceedings in the case are terminated due to the absence of elements of an administrative offense in L.’s actions.

Guided by Art. Art. 12.27 part 2, 29.9.2, 29.10 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, court

P O S T A N O V I L:

Terminate proceedings in the case of an administrative offense against L.A.V. under Art. 12.27 part 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation due to the absence in his actions of an administrative offense under clause 2 of part 1 of Art. 24.5 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The decision can be appealed to the Novosibirsk Regional Court within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decision.

Judge ________Koneva Yu.A.

The resolution came into force on May 21, 2010. ST. PETERSBURG CITY COURT

Judge Mochalov E.K. Case No. 5-66/11

Judge of the St. Petersburg City Court Shirokova E.A., with Secretary Ts., having considered on February 17, 2011 at a court hearing on the premises of the court an administrative case on a complaint against the decision of the judge of the Vyborg District Court of St. Petersburg dated January 27, 2011 regarding
E.,<...>,

Installed:

According to the protocol on administrative offense 78 N 28-20784-10 on December 22, 2010 at 13.20 at 14 building 4 on the street. Smolyachkova in St. Petersburg, driver E. committed a violation of clause 2.5 of the Russian Federation Traffic Regulations while driving a Ford Transit state-owned vehicle. number<...>, became involved in an accident with a Honda Civic state vehicle. number<...>. In violation of Russian traffic regulations, he left the scene of the accident and did not report the incident to the police department.
By the decision of the judge of the Vyborg District Court of St. Petersburg dated January 27, 2011, proceedings in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to E. terminated on the basis of clause 2, part 1 of Art. 24.5 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Victim M.E. appealed to the St. Petersburg City Court with a complaint to cancel the court decision and send the case for a new trial, indicating that the court had lawfully established the event of an accident. At the same time, it does not follow from the decision how the court established that E.’s car has significant dimensions, the fact that the Ford Transit car is equipped with a diesel engine and the conclusion about its increased noise are not confirmed in any way. Witness F.S. reported that driver E., immediately after hitting the Honda car, stopped for 5 - 10 seconds, after which he continued driving, scratching the Honda car, and heard a grinding sound. During the collision, 2 elements of the Honda car were damaged, which was incorrectly assessed by the court as minor damage.
Victim M.E. did not appear at the St. Petersburg City Court, was notified of the place and time of consideration of the complaint, and submitted an application for its consideration in his absence.
E. does not agree with the complaint, he explained that he could only travel to the indicated place at 10 o’clock, and at 13.20 he was in another place.
Having examined the case materials, I consider the complaint not subject to satisfaction for the following reasons.
When considering this case, the judge examined all the evidence presented, including E.’s explanations, the testimony of the victim M.E. and witness F.S. and the event of an accident involving Ford Transit and Honda Civic vehicles was reasonably established.
At the same time, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a person is subject to administrative liability only for those administrative offenses in respect of which his guilt has been established. Irremovable doubts about the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility are interpreted in favor of this person.
The court examined the subjective side of the offense imputed to E., assessed the testimony of an eyewitness to the accident, other evidence in the case, characterized the vehicle driven by E. according to generally known facts, and made a reasonable conclusion that the fact of the latter’s knowledge of the event of the accident, that is, the presence of intent, was unproven to leave the scene of an accident.
Under such circumstances, the court correctly concluded that E.’s actions did not constitute an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, the grounds for termination of the proceedings are indicated in the reasoning part of the resolution.

Resolution of the judge of the Vyborg District Court of St. Petersburg dated January 27, 2011 in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to E., leave unchanged, the complaint of the victim M.E. - without satisfaction.

Judge
SHIROKOVA E.A.

2. Try to convince the court to terminate the proceedings due to the insignificance of the administrative offense

MOSCOW CITY COURT

Deputy Chairman of the Moscow City Court Dmitriev A.N., having considered K.’s complaint against the decision of the judge of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow dated November 5, 2008 and the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated December 2, 2008 in the case of an administrative offense,

Installed:

By the decision of the judge of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow dated November 5, 2008, K. was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and he was given an administrative penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 1 year.
By the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated December 2, 2008, the said judge’s decision was left unchanged, and K.’s complaint was not satisfied.
In the supervisory complaint, K. asks for the cancellation of the court decisions in the case, citing the fact that the abrasions on the Peugeot Boxer car, discovered during an inspection of the car by a traffic police inspector, could not have occurred at the time of the accident on October 10, 2008, the damage on the car was not identified Ford Fiesta and a Peugeot Boxer.
Having checked the materials of the administrative violation case and studied the arguments of the complaint, I find the appealed decisions subject to cancellation on the following grounds.
When considering the case, the district court judge established that K., on October 10, 2008, at 5:42 p.m., while driving a state-owned Peugeot Boxer. reg. sign<...>, following the Kashirskoye Highway in the area of ​​21 in Moscow, being a participant in an accident with a Ford Fiesta state vehicle. reg. sign<...>under the control of Z., in violation of clause 2.5 of the Traffic Regulations of the Russian Federation, left the scene of an accident, thereby committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Since the fact of committing an administrative offense and K.’s guilt is confirmed by the protocol on the administrative offense case, the report of the traffic police officer, the road accident diagram describing the damage on the Ford Fiesta car, the inspection report of the Peugeot Boxer car, the testimony of witness Z., the conclusion of the district court judge about the presence of actions of K. constitute an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is correct.
At the same time, from the case materials it is clear that, by leaving the scene of the accident, K. by his actions did not significantly violate protected public legal relations, while there was no harm caused and no negative consequences occurred. Thus, from the testimony of the driver of the Ford Fiesta Z., it follows that, due to the braking of the Peugeot Boxer car in front, she touched the front bumper of her car with the rear bumper of the Peugeot Boxer car, the driver of which got out of the car, inspected his car and fled the scene of the accident. At the same time, Z. does not indicate any damage to her car; the inspection report shows damage to the front bumper of her car, but the nature of the damage is not indicated. From K.’s testimony it follows that while driving he felt a slight blow to the rear of the car, immediately stopped, got out of the car, examined the rear, did not notice any damage and thought that the pan had moved. He saw a Ford Fiesta parked behind him, but the driver of the car was talking on the phone and did not get out of the car, and he, thinking that there was no accident, drove away. The specified circumstances of the accident allowed K. to count on his innocence in the accident, his actions were not aimed at avoiding liability, no damage was caused to his car, he had reason to believe that the other car was not damaged.
Thus, K.’s actions, although formally containing signs of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, but taking into account the nature of the offense committed and the role of the offender, the amount of harm and the severity of the consequences that occurred, they do not represent a significant violation of protected public legal relations, i.e. are a minor administrative offence.
In accordance with Art. 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, if the administrative offense committed is insignificant, the judge authorized to decide the case of an administrative offense may release the person who committed the administrative offense from administrative liability and limit himself to an oral remark.
If the insignificance of the administrative offense committed is established when considering a complaint in the manner of supervision against a resolution in a case of an administrative offense, a decision based on the results of consideration of the complaint, then on the basis of clause 4 of part 2 of Art. 30.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a decision is made to cancel the resolution and decision and terminate the proceedings.
Based on the above, guided by clause 4, part 2, art. 30.17 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,

Resolved:

Resolution of the judge of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow dated November 5, 2008 and the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated December 2, 2008 in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to K. cancel, the proceedings on the case of an administrative offense are terminated due to the insignificance of the administrative offense committed.

Vice-chairman
Moscow City Court
A.N.DMITRIEV

Judge T.B. Romashova Case No. 5-295/10

Judge of the St. Petersburg City Court Lidiya Antonovna Litova, having considered on January 18, 2011 in open court on the premises of the court with the participation of the prosecutor of the St. Petersburg prosecutor's office Merkusheva M.A. with Secretary Ts. an administrative case on a complaint against the decision of the judge of the Petrogradsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated November 3, 2010 regarding
Sh.,<...>

Installed:

According to the accident report N 04965 on an administrative offense, compiled by the search inspector of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Petrogradsky district of St. Petersburg V.A. September 2, 2010 (case file 3), driver Sh.<...>V<...>driving a VAZ-2112 car, g.r.z.<...>, y<...>while reversing, collided with a parked Nissan Primera car, street level.<...>in the absence of driver Ya.A., after which, in violation of clause 2.5 of the Russian Federation Traffic Regulations, he left the scene of the incident.
By the decision of the judge of the Petrogradsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated November 3, 2010 (case sheets 36 - 39), Sh. was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and he was given an administrative penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 1 (one) year.
Sh. filed a complaint with the St. Petersburg City Court (case files 49 - 51), in which he indicates that he does not agree with the judge’s decision, based on the following. While in the parking lot<...>while driving a VAZ-2112 car,<...>near<...>Having made sure that the maneuver was safe and having given a preliminary sound signal, he began to move in reverse, made a U-turn and continued driving. He, Sh., did not collide with other cars, no one reported any collisions to him, and none of the people in the parking lot made any attempts to stop his car. Believes that the court incorrectly assessed the factual circumstances of the case. Gives his assessment of the testimony of the only witness to the accident, M.A. He, Sh., told inspector V.A. that already at the time of purchase the VAZ-2112 car had a large number of different scratches (in particular on the rear bumper) and asked to appoint an examination that would clearly establish whether (and if so, which of the existing) damage was caused in a collision of these particular ones cars. However, the inspector refused to order an examination; instead, he inspected the vehicles and drew up a protocol in which he reflected his point of view. Believes that the protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up in violation of the requirements of Art. 28.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - M.A. is not listed there as a witness. Therefore, he asks the district court judge to cancel the decision and send the case for a new trial.
The second participant in the accident, victim Ya.A. was notified of the place and time of consideration of Sh.'s complaint by telephone message, which he received personally (case file 56), but did not appear at the St. Petersburg City Court. Request to postpone the hearing of the case from Y.A. the city court did not receive it. Since the case materials are sufficient to consider the case on the merits, the victim was properly notified of the date of the court hearing and Sh. appeared in court, in respect of whom a decision was made in the case of an administrative offense, I consider it possible to consider the case in the absence of the victim Ya.A.
At the court hearing, Sh. supported the arguments of his complaint. He testified that he did not feel any impact during the turn, did not hear any sounds indicating an accident, and no one stopped his car. If he had known that he had damaged someone else’s car, he would have definitely stayed at the scene of the accident, since his MTPL has additional options and the insurance company would have paid for the damage. After he, Sh., went on business and returned to the same parking lot to pick up his wife and child, no one approached him either.
Having checked the case materials and administrative materials on the fact of the accident dated August 8, 2010, received from the Petrograd State Traffic Safety Inspectorate, having listened to the conclusion of the prosecutor M.A. Merkusheva, who believed that, taking into account the insignificance of the offense committed, it is possible to release Sh. from administrative liability with the announcement of an oral reprimand, I think the complaint must be satisfied on the following grounds.
As can be seen from the case materials, according to the certificate of a traffic accident in a Nissan car, state r.z.<...>Damage was found to the left front fender and left front bumper (case sheet 18). When inspecting a VAZ-21120 car, g.r.z.<...>Damage to the rear bumper on the left was established (case sheet 17). According to the testimony of witness M.A. it was the driver Sh. who was involved in the accident, which he left.
In addition, Sh. himself in his explanations did not deny the fact of passage<...>in the parking lot<...>, but I did not hear any sounds indicating an accident, nor did I feel the impact. Grounds for slander by witness M.A. Sh. not established. In addition, the totality of the evidence presented in this case is sufficient; the appointment of an automotive technical examination in this case is not required, since the damage received by Ya.A. and Sh., are characteristic of this accident, established by the vehicle inspection report (case sheet 17), drawn up by the appropriate official.
Thus, during the consideration of this case, the judge of the Petrograd District Court examined all the evidence presented in the case, and it was reasonably established that both the fact of a road traffic accident in which Sh. was a participant, and the fact of his leaving the scene of the accident.
In view of the above, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the fact that the victim Ya.A. considers the damage caused to his car to be insignificant and does not insist on strict punishment for Sh., and this position of his was reflected in the decision of the district court judge dated November 3, 2010, and Sh., due to the insignificance of the accident, could not have noticed the collision, I believe that, given the formal presence of Sh.'s actions contain all the elements of an offense, it in itself does not contain any dangerous threats to the individual, society or the state, and therefore I believe it is possible to release Sh. from administrative liability due to the insignificance of the offense with the announcement of an oral reprimand.
Guided by Art. 30.7 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation,

The decision of the judge of the Petrogradsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated November 3, 2010 regarding Sh. is cancelled.
Based on Art. 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, proceedings in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to Sh., terminate due to the insignificance of the offense committed and release him from administrative liability, limiting himself to an oral reprimand.

Judge
LITOVA L.A.

ST. PETERSBURG CITY COURT

Judge Portnov A.M. Case No. 5-222/10

Judge of the St. Petersburg City Court Lidiya Antonovna Litova, having considered on July 8, 2010 in open court at the court premises under Secretary R. an administrative case on a complaint against the decision of the judge of the Primorsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated May 12, 2010 regarding
L.,<...>

Installed:

According to protocol 78 ВХ N 2228-10 on an administrative offense dated April 29, 2010 (case file 8), driver L. April 2, 2010 at 20:00. 00 min., driving a Honda Civic, g.r.z. N<...>, when driving along the street. Kamyshovaya, 2, in St. Petersburg, made contact with a Ford Transit car, r.z. N<...>, under the control of driver S.I., after which, in violation of clause 2.5 of the Traffic Regulations of the Russian Federation, he left the scene of an accident in which he was a participant.
By the decision of the judge of the Primorsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated May 12, 2010 (case sheets 34 - 35), L. was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and he was given an administrative penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 1 (one) year.
Defender L. Murzin I.G., acting on the basis of a notarized power of attorney dated May 18, 2010 (case sheet 41), and L. sent complaints to the St. Petersburg City Court (case sheets 39 - 40, 42 - 44 ), similar in content, in which (each on his own behalf) indicate that they do not agree with the decision of the district court judge. The testimony of S.I. available in the case materials is analyzed. Please note that the judge’s ruling did not evaluate the evidence underlying the accusation; his, L.’s, explanations refuting the circumstances set out in the case materials, as well as the explanations of witnesses P.A., were not examined and evaluated. and F.A. Since the judge’s conclusions are not based on a comprehensive and complete clarification of all the circumstances of the case, they ask the district court judge to cancel the decision and send the case for a new trial.
L. was sent a telegram to his place of residence to appear in the St. Petersburg City Court (case file 52). As follows from the postal notice (case sheet 54), the apartment is closed and the addressee for the telegram is not there. Defense attorney L. Murzin I.G. appeared at the court hearing and confirmed that L. had been notified of the date of the court hearing. Since Chapter 30 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which establishes the procedure for reviewing decisions in cases of administrative offenses, does not contain a requirement according to which the presence of a person against whom proceedings are being conducted on his complaint or the complaint of his lawyer in a higher court is mandatory, but in court the victim S.I., a participant in the accident, appeared. and defense lawyer L. Murzin I.G., and the materials are sufficient to consider the case on the merits, I consider it possible to consider the case in the absence of L.
At the court hearing, defense attorney Murzin I.G. supported the arguments of the complaints.
The second participant in the accident, victim S.I. testified that on April 2, 2010, from the contact of him, S.I., with a Ford Transit car, G.R.Z. N<...>, with the car "Honda Civic", r.z. N<...>which occurred when driver L. saw that the polish on his car was damaged - a strip of red paint approximately 20-25 cm long remained on the right side. He considers such damage to be insignificant. At present, L. has no complaints against the driver and does not insist on strict punishment.
Having checked the case materials, I believe that, taking into account the insignificance of the offense committed, it is possible to release L. from administrative liability with the announcement of an oral reprimand on the following grounds.
As can be seen from the case materials, according to the certificate of a traffic accident in a Ford Transit car, G.R.Z. N<...>, damage to the right side was discovered (it is not indicated what exactly the damage was - dents, scratches, chips, etc.). According to the testimony of the victim S.I. it was the driver L. who was involved in the accident, which he left. In addition, L. himself, in his explanations (case file 16), did not deny the fact of contact with the Ford car, which touched his mirror.
Thus, during the consideration of this case, the judge of the Primorsky District Court examined all the evidence presented in the case, and reasonably established both the fact of a road traffic accident in which L. was a participant, and the fact that the latter left the scene of the accident.
In view of the above, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the fact that the victim S.I. has no claims against L. and he suffered minor material damage, I believe that while L.’s actions formally contain all the elements of an offense, it in itself does not contain any dangerous threats to the individual, society or state, and therefore I believe it is possible to release L. from administrative liability due to the insignificance of the offense with the announcement of an oral reprimand.
Guided by Art. 30.7 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation,

The decision of the judge of the Primorsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated May 12, 2010 regarding L. is cancelled.
Based on Art. 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, proceedings in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to L., terminate due to the insignificance of the offense committed and release him from administrative liability, limiting himself to an oral reprimand.

Judge
LITOVA L.A.

3. Hiding from court for more than 3 months from the date of commission of the offense (road accident)

Article 25.1. A person against whom proceedings are being conducted for an administrative offense

1. A person against whom proceedings are being conducted for an administrative offense has the right to familiarize himself with all the materials of the case, give explanations, present evidence, file petitions and challenges, use the legal assistance of a defense attorney, as well as other procedural rights in accordance with this Code.
2. A case of an administrative offense is considered with the participation of a person against whom proceedings are being conducted for an administrative offense. In the absence of the specified person, the case may be considered only in the cases provided for in Part 3 of Article 28.6 of this Code, or if there is evidence of proper notification of the person about the place and time of the consideration of the case and if the person has not received a petition to postpone the consideration of the case or if such a petition is abandoned without satisfaction.
(as amended by Federal Law No. 210-FZ dated July 24, 2007)
3. A judge, body, or official considering a case of an administrative offense has the right to recognize the presence of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted as mandatory during the consideration of the case.
When considering a case of an administrative offense entailing administrative arrest or administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation of a foreign citizen or stateless person, the presence of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.
4. A minor in respect of whom proceedings are being conducted for an administrative offense may be removed while the circumstances of the case are being considered, the discussion of which may have a negative impact on the specified person.

Since the punishment under Article 12.27 Part 2 includes, among other things, arrest, the court cannot consider the case in the absence of the LVOC. If he continues for 3 months somewhere, then the case must be terminated due to the statute of limitations.

Example

NEWSLETTER
JUDICIAL PRACTICE
SVERDLOVSK REGIONAL COURT

(FOURTH QUARTER 2009)
9. When considering a case of an administrative offense entailing administrative arrest, the presence of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.

(extraction)

By the decision of the judge of the Novouralsk City Court Z., an administrative penalty was imposed in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 1 year for committing an administrative offense provided for in Part 2 of Article 12.27 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.
The specified punishment was imposed on him because, while driving a VAZ-21102 car, in Novouralsk on the street. Promyshlenny hit a stationary VAZ-2107 car belonging to V., after which, in violation of paragraph 2.5 of the Road Traffic Rules of the Russian Federation, he left the scene of the traffic accident.
In his complaint, Z. raised the issue of canceling the decision and releasing him from punishment due to the insignificance of the offense. In support of his arguments, he indicated that he did not notice how he hit another car, the damage to the car was minor, the insurance compensation was paid to the victim.
Having checked the materials of the administrative violation case, studied the arguments of the complaint, and listened to the speech of E.’s defense lawyer, the judge of the regional court found the decision subject to cancellation on the following grounds.
The sanction of Part 2 of Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for punishment in the form of administrative arrest, in this case, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Part 3 of Article 25.1 of the said Code, the presence of the person against whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.
However, the judge of the Novouralsk City Court violated these requirements of the law and the case of an administrative offense was considered in the absence of Z.
In this regard, the decision of the judge of the Novouralsk City Court was canceled and the proceedings in the case were terminated on the basis of paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 24.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.

Solution
judges of the Sverdlovsk regional court
dated September 4, 2009, case No. 71-307/2009

Another example

MOSCOW CITY COURT

Deputy Chairman of the Moscow City Court Dmitriev A.N., having considered R.’s supervisory complaint against the decision of the judge of the Nagatinsky District Court of the City of Moscow dated March 19, 2009 and the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated May 5, 2009 in the case of an administrative offense,

Installed:

By a decision of the judge of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow dated March 19, 2009, R. was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and he was given an administrative penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 1 (one) year.
By the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated May 5, 2009, the said decision of the district court judge was left unchanged, and R.’s complaint was not satisfied.
In this complaint, R. asks for the cancellation of the court decisions taken in the case, citing the fact that the case was considered incompletely and not comprehensively, that he was not present at the court hearing when the case was considered in the district court due to illness, although in accordance with Part 3 Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, his participation in the court hearing was mandatory.
Having checked the materials of the administrative violation case and studied the arguments of the complaint, I find the decision of the magistrate and the decision of the district court judge subject to cancellation on the following grounds.
In accordance with Art. 24.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the objectives of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses are a comprehensive, complete, objective and timely clarification of the circumstances of each case, its resolution in accordance with the law, ensuring the execution of the decision made, as well as identifying the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of administrative offenses.
In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a case of an administrative offense is considered with the participation of a person against whom proceedings are being conducted for an administrative offense. In the absence of the specified person, the case can be considered only in cases where there is information about the proper notification of the person about the place and time of the consideration of the case and if the person has not received a petition to postpone the consideration of the case or if such a petition is left unsatisfied.
In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a judge, body, or official considering a case of an administrative offense has the right to recognize as mandatory the presence during the consideration of the case of the person against whom the proceedings are being conducted. When considering a case of an administrative offense entailing administrative arrest or administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation of a foreign citizen or stateless person, the presence of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.
From the case materials it is clear that the district court judge, considering the case of an administrative offense in the absence of R., came to the conclusion that his presence is not necessary when considering the case of an administrative offense, however, this conclusion of the district court judge is not based on the law.
Considering the case in the absence of R., the district court judge did not take into account that the sanction of Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for, among other things, administrative arrest as a punishment. By virtue of the above-mentioned provision of Part 3 of Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the presence of R. during the consideration of the case was mandatory, regardless of what punishment was assigned to him based on the results of the consideration of the case.
The judge of the Moscow City Court did not give a proper assessment to the violation of the law.
Thus, the decision of the judge of the Nagatinsky district court of the city of Moscow dated March 19, 2009 and the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated May 5, 2009 in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, cannot be recognized as legal and are subject to repeal.
In accordance with clause 6, part 1, art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility is a circumstance that excludes proceedings in the case.
Proceedings in this case in accordance with paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is subject to termination due to the expiration of the established clause 1 of Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the two-month limitation period for bringing to administrative responsibility.
Based on the above, guided by art. 30.13, Art. 30.17 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Resolved:

Resolution of the judge of the Nagatinsky district court of the city of Moscow dated March 19, 2009 and the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated May 5, 2009 in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to R. cancel, the proceedings in the case are terminated on the basis of clause 6, part 1 of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility.

Vice-chairman
Moscow City Court
A.N.DMITRIEV

NEWS BULLETIN
JUDICIAL PRACTICE OF THE ARKHANGELSK REGIONAL COURT
IN CASES OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES
FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2009
3.4. Consideration of a case of an administrative offense

When considering a case of an administrative offense entailing administrative arrest, the presence of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.

By the decision of the magistrate gr. T. was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, with the imposition of punishment in the form of administrative arrest.
The deputy chairman of the regional court canceled the decision of the magistrate, terminating the proceedings in the case, indicating the following.
In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, when considering a case of an administrative offense entailing administrative arrest, the presence of the person against whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.
In violation of this norm, the case was considered in the absence of gr. That is why his right to judicial protection was violated.
This violation of the law is a significant violation of the procedural rights of the person against whom the proceedings are being conducted, and is an absolute basis for canceling the judge’s decision (Resolution No. 4a-203).

4. Seek arrest

Part 2 of Article 12.27 provides for punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive or arrest for up to 15 days.
For some citizens, it is easier, both morally and for other reasons, to sit in custody for several days rather than lose their right.
But the courts do not always agree to apply such punishment, especially for minor accidents. Only if you like it)))

5. Agree with the victim before communicating with traffic cops

This is the most ideal and simplest option. Sometimes it works. To do this, try to find the victim before visiting the traffic police and agree with him so that he does not identify you and your car when you and he are called to the traffic police for identification.
Then he “doesn’t recognize” you and your car, writes a statement to terminate the proceedings, the traffic cop will simply close the case. It’s good for you and for the victim - you won’t remain a pedestrian, the victim doesn’t have to deal with bureaucracy and he will recover his losses as quickly as possible. I recommend starting with this option.

6. Declare in court that the vehicle was not driven by you, but by another person by proxy

At the time the court is considering the case, time drags on, then the court is presented with evidence of the transfer of the vehicle to another person - a power of attorney, acts of acceptance and transfer, you can bring this other person to the court so that he can testify.
Taking into account the statute of limitations of 3 months from the date of the accident, this other person simply will not have time to bring to administrative responsibility.
But the harm will have to be compensated to him - to another person. So resolve all issues regarding this with him.
And remember that in this case, the insurance company, after the insurance payment, has the right to file a recourse claim against your good assistant.

So, decide for yourself which option to choose, taking into account the current practice in your region.

Case No. 5-2454/2014

Protocol 35 AR 373437

RESOLUTION

And about. Magistrate Judge of the Vologda Region for judicial district No. 63 S.V. Morozov, located at the address: Vologda, Gorky Street, 86, room No. 324, having examined in open court the materials of the case on an administrative offense under Part 3 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in relation to “full name”, “date” year of birth, native of Vologda, not working, registered and living at the address: “data withdrawn”,

INSTALLED:

According to the administrative violation protocol 35 AR 373437, on October 13, 2014 at 2 p.m. 05 min. at house 139 on Naberezhnaya street 6 of the Army of the city of Vologda “F.I.O.” in violation of paragraphs. 2.7 SDA, being a participant in the accident dated October 13, 2014, did not comply with the legal requirement to prohibit drinking alcoholic beverages, after the accident in which he was involved until the examination was carried out in order to eliminate intoxication.

"FULL NAME." explained to the court that on October 13, 2014, he was indeed a participant in a traffic accident, but did not drink alcohol either before or after the traffic accident. The employees spoke to him in a rude manner.

Representative by proxy Barbolin O.V. at the court hearing he supported his client, explained that the administrative offense under Art. 12.27 part 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in actions “F.I.O.” not available, since there is no evidence confirming the fact that the driver consumed alcohol during the period of time that elapsed from the moment of the accident until the arrival of the traffic police officers.

According to Art. 26.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the circumstance to be clarified in a case of an administrative offense is to determine the existence of an event of an administrative offense, the person who committed unlawful actions (inaction), and the guilt of the person in committing an administrative offense.

Clause 2.7 of the traffic rules stipulates that the driver is prohibited from consuming alcoholic beverages, narcotic, psychotropic or other intoxicating substances after a traffic accident in which he is involved, or after the vehicle has been stopped at the request of a police officer, until an examination is carried out to establish state of intoxication or until a decision is made to exempt from such examination.

For violation of this paragraph of the Rules, administrative liability is provided under Part 3 of Art. 12.27 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The court, having heard “F.I.O.”, his representative, and having examined the case materials, comes to the following conclusion.

Evidence objectively confirming guilt in committing an administrative offense under Art. 12.27 Part 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is not available in the case materials.

Thus, according to Protocol 35 AR No. 373436 dated October 13, 2014 on the involvement of “F.I.O.” to administrative liability under Art. 12.27 part 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the latter driving a vehicle “data seized”, state registration number “data seized”, in violation of paragraphs. 2.5 of the traffic rules, left the scene of a traffic accident in which he was a participant.

In addition, according to the medical examination report for the state of intoxication of the person driving the vehicle, on October 13, 2014, he refused to undergo examination.

In accordance with Art. 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a person is subject to administrative liability only for those administrative offenses in respect of which his guilt has been established. Irremovable doubts about the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility are interpreted in favor of this person.

Taking into account the established circumstances, as well as the absence in the case materials of evidence objectively confirming the driver’s consumption of alcohol during the period of time between the commission of a traffic accident and before the traffic police officer made a decision to send him for a medical examination, the court does not see in the actions of the administrative staff offense under Art. 12.27 part 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and considers it necessary to terminate the proceedings in the case.

Based on the above, guided by art. Art. 29.9-29.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, magistrate

DECIDED:

Proceedings in the case of an administrative offense under Art. 12.27 part 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in relation to “full name” terminate due to the absence of an administrative offense in his actions.

The decision can be appealed to the Vologda City Court through the magistrate for judicial district No. 63 within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decision.

Magistrate S.V. Morozov

The current regulations in 2019 provide for fairly severe penalties for leaving the scene of an accident. An offense such as spontaneously driving away from the scene of an accident is considered quite serious.

Leaving the scene of an accident (Article 12 27 part 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) entails administrative arrest, fine and/or deprivation of rights for up to one and a half years.

The driver will face punishment even if he did not notice how he became involved in the accident. This can happen when, for example, you carelessly scratched someone else’s car and drove away.

We suggest that you consider these situations in more detail in order to protect yourself from mistakes and thereby avoid liability for leaving the scene of an accident.

If you find yourself in a difficult situation, we are ready to provide free legal consultation on this issue. Contact our lawyer by phone to receive professional legal support!

Check out an example of a case we won:

Many car owners, when contacting a law firm, begin the conversation with the question of what they face, according to the adopted standards of 2019. The following rules currently apply:

• Leaving the scene of an accident is possible if there are no injuries in the accident and both participants have no claims against each other.
• If one of the participants left the scene of the accident, despite protests from the second driver, this is the basis for initiating a lawsuit in which you will have to defend your interests.
• It is possible to temporarily leave the scene of an accident without punishment if, as a result of the accident, there are victims who require emergency hospitalization, but it is not possible to find other transport to transport citizens to a medical facility.

However, according to Art. 12 27 h 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, after a trip to a medical facility, the driver is obliged to return to the scene of the incident, and before that, in the presence of witnesses, record the position of the vehicle during the accident and other details of the incident.

There is no special punishment for leaving the scene of an accident without injuries (2019) if two vehicles were involved in the accident, the drivers of which have valid MTPL policies.

If the participants do not disagree about who is responsible for the incident, you can file an accident without calling the police. Based on these documents, the insurer will make a compensation payment.

And finally, Article 12 27 provides for the possibility of avoiding punishment by leaving the scene of an accident if there is a need to clear the road because the vehicle is obstructing traffic.

When studying information about what punishment is provided by law for leaving the scene of an accident under the new rules, you should pay attention to the fact that, in addition to a fine and deprivation of rights, you may be faced with the need to compensate the insurance company for damages.

In this case, the insurer has a legal basis for filing a lawsuit against the culprit of the incident in order to recover the amount that was paid to the victim.

Thus, for a person who left the scene of an accident, the punishment for a rash act can become truly extremely severe and very unfavorable for the budget!

How to avoid such problems? First of all, we strongly advise you to study Article 12 27 part 1 and part 2. This will protect you from mistakes caused by ignorance of legal regulations. In addition, you should always have the phone number of a car lawyer on hand, who you can contact if unexpected problems arise on the road.

In 2019 and over the past period of this year, many motorists managed to avoid punishment for leaving the scene of an accident, as well as unfounded claims from participants in the incident, since the necessary legal protection measures were taken in a timely manner, an objective assessment of the situation was made and the real guilt of each of the participants in the incident was established .

Is it possible to avoid punishment in the form of deprivation of rights for leaving the scene of an accident?

If there has been a violation of Article 12 27 Part 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and you are looking for ways to avoid punishment for leaving the scene of an accident, we advise you to immediately contact the specialists of the Auto Lawyer Moscow company. Thanks to our extensive practical experience, we are able to find solutions to problems even in the most difficult cases!

A very unpleasant consequence for a driver in the event of leaving the scene of an accident, according to the norms, is a punishment in the form of a ban on driving for up to one and a half years. A recourse claim by an insurance company is also not a reason for joy.

Some drivers who have violated Part 1 of Article 12 27 consider punishment inevitable, so they refuse to even attend a court hearing and try to exercise their legal right to prove their innocence!

If your lawyer proves that you left the scene of the accident out of extreme necessity, we will talk about the absence of an offense, which entails the dismissal of the charges.

Thus, avoiding punishment for leaving the scene of an accident (12 27 part 2) is only possible if a good car lawyer represents your interests in court! If you need advice from a car lawyer, call our company - help is guaranteed!

Check out an example of a won case: