Document from CIS Legislation database © 2003-2024 SojuzPravoInform LLC

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

On April 25, 2011 No. 6-P

On the case of check of constitutionality of part 1 of Article 3.7 and part 2 of article 8.28 of the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences in connection with the claim of limited liability company "Stroykomplekt

Constitutional court of the Russian Federation as a part of the Chairman V. D. Zorkin, K. V. Aranovsky's judges, A. I. Boytsova, N. S. Bondar, G. A. Gadzhiyev, Yu. M. Danilov, L. M. Zharkova, G. A. Zhilin, S. M. Kazantsev, M. I. Kleandrov, S. D. Knyazev, A. N. Kokotov, L. O. Krasavchikova, S. P. Mavrin, N. V. Melnikov, Yu. D. Rudkin, N. V. Seleznyov, O. S. Hokhryakova,

with participation of the representative of Stroykomplekt LLC - the lawyer E. Yu. Sokova, the permanent representative of the State Duma in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation A. N. Kharitonov, the representative of the Federation Council - the doctor of jurisprudence E. V. Vinogradova, the plenipotentiary of the President of the Russian Federation in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation M. V. Krotov,

being guided by Article 125 (part 4) Constitutions of the Russian Federation, Item 3 parts one, parts three and the fourth Article 3, Article part one 21, Articles 36, 74, 86, 96, 97 and 99 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation",

considered case on check of constitutionality of part 1 of Article 3.7 and part 2 of the article 8.28 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in open session.

Reason for consideration of the case was the claim of Stroykomplekt LLC. The basis to consideration of the case was the found uncertainty in question of whether there correspond the Constitutions of the Russian Federation disputed by the applicant of legislative provision.

Having heard the message of the judge-speaker Yu. D. Rudkin, explanation of agents of the parties, speech of the representative invited in meeting from the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation - T. A. Vasilyeva, having researched the submitted documents and other materials, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation established:

1. According to the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences confiscation of the tool of making or subject of administrative offense is the forced non-paid address to federal property or to property of the subject of the Russian Federation of the things which are not withdrawn from circulation; confiscation is appointed by the judge (part 1 of Article 3. 7); the illegal cabin, damage of forest plantings made using mechanisms, automotor-vehicles, self-propelled machines and other types of the equipment if these actions do not contain penal act, attract imposing of administrative penalty on citizens (officials, legal entities) in the corresponding size with confiscation of the tool of making of administrative offense and products of illegal environmental management (part 2 of Article 8. 28).

1.1. Citizens G. A. Dvoryashin and D. V. Strogonov were found of making of the administrative offense provided by part 2 of the article 8.28 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, resolutions of the magistrate judge of judicial site N 2 of the city of Kotlas of the Arkhangelsk region of September 14, 2009 and of September 15, 2009 guilty, and everyone underwent to administrative punishment in the form of administrative penalty in the amount of 3500 rubles with confiscation of the tool of making this administrative the pravonarusheniyamnogofunktsionalny logging machine (harvester of "John Deere 1270D") which owner is Stroykomplekt LLC.

Including regarding confiscation of the logging machine which was transferred to it by the employer owning it, in turn, on a leasehold basis, the Arkhangelsk regional court left the supervising claim of G. A. Dvoryashin objecting to appointment to him administrative punishment without satisfaction, having specified in the resolution of January 28, 2010 that owing to the article 3.7 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation confiscation of the tool of making of administrative offense is made irrespective of, there is it at person who made administrative offense in property or on other legal causes.

On November 3, 2009 the judicial police officer-contractor of department of bailiffs of the city of Kotlas and the Kotlas district of Office of the Federal Bailiff Service of the Arkhangelsk region concerning debtors G. A. Dvoryashin and D. V. Strogonov issued decrees on excitement of enforcement proceeding in which as subject of execution confiscation in the income of the state multipurpose logging mashinykharvester of "John Deere 1270D" was specified.

1.2. As appears from Articles 36, 74, 96 and 97 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" concretizing Article 125 (part 4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation takes cognizance of claims of citizens, and also associations of citizens to violation of their constitutional rights and freedoms the law if comes to conclusion that the disputed legislative provisions are applied in specific case which consideration is complete in court, and affect constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens and that there is uncertainty in question of whether there correspond these legislative provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation; accepting the resolution only in the subject specified in the claim and only concerning that part of the act which constitutionality is called in question, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation estimates both literal sense of the considered legislative provisions, and the sense given them by official and other interpretation or the developed law-enforcement practice and also comes from their place in system of legal acts.

In this case the regulations of the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences applied by courts in cases of citizens G. A. Dvoryashin and D. V. Strogonov and disputed in the constitutional legal proceedings of Stroykomplekt LLC affect the applicant's rights as owner of the subject confiscation of the logging machine which was the tool of making of administrative offense for which the specified citizens were subjected to administrative punishment that allows to consider Stroykomplekt LLC as the proper applicant on this case from the point of view of the given provisions of the Federal constitutional Law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation".

Violation by part 1 of Article 3.7 and part 2 of the article 8.28 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 15 (part

4), 17 (part 1), 35 (parts 1 and 3) and 55 (parts 1 and 3) Constitutions of the Russian Federation and the Convention on human rights protection and fundamental freedoms (Item 1 of Article 6, Article 13 and article 1 of the Protocol N 1), sees Stroykomplekt LLC that they allow confiscation of the tool of making of administrative offense without involvement of the owner of this property to the administrative responsibility and the possibility of purpose of proportional punishment is excluded.

Respectively, subject of consideration of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of this case are provisions of part 2 of the article 8.28 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation as the tools of making of the administrative offense belonging on the property right not to the offender, but other person who is not brought to the administrative responsibility for this administrative offense allowing confiscation in interrelation with part 1 of article 3.7 of this Code.

Warning!!!

This is not a full text of document! Document shown in Demo mode!

If you have active License, please Login, or get License for Full Access.

With Full access you can get: full text of document, original text of document in Russian, attachments (if exist) and see History and Statistics of your work.

Get License for Full Access Now

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info

Effectively work with search system

Database include more 50000 documents. You can find needed documents using search system. For effective work you can mix any on documents parameters: country, documents type, date range, teams or tags.
More about search system

Get help

If you cannot find the required document, or you do not know where to begin, go to Help section.

In this section, we’ve tried to describe in detail the features and capabilities of the system, as well as the most effective techniques for working with the database.

You also may open the section Frequently asked questions. This section provides answers to questions set by users.

Search engine created by SoyuzPravoInform LLC.