On the legal regulation of recognizing inadmissible the evidence in administrative violation cases


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Evidence is vitally important in the proceedings on administrative violation cases, which allows identifying the signs of the constituent elements of an offense and reaching the truth. In this regard, it is important to collect evidence in strict accordance with the norms of the law. The institution of inadmissible evidence serves this purpose. At the same time, based on a comparative analysis of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the author concludes on the insufficiency of legal regulation of this institution in the current legislation on administrative offenses. The paper formulates two hypotheses that may cause this problem: the presence of a gap in the law (“real gap”) or the case of the legislator’s intentional silence (“imaginary gap”). The author emphasizes the possibility and necessity to regulate the relations associated with the recognition of evidence in administrative violation cases as inadmissible. It is stated that the importance of the institution of inadmissible evidence in the proceedings on administrative violation cases excludes the possibility of the legislator’s qualified silence. Based on the above arguments, the author substantiates the validity of the first hypothesis. While discussing the results of the study, issues requiring additional legal regulation are identified. The author proposes to include in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation a definition of the concept of inadmissible evidence, the additional legislative regulation in the norms of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation of cases of recognition as inadmissible of administrative offense protocols, the testimony of a victim and witnesses, as well as an evidence obtained during control and supervisory activities. In this regard, the author proposes supplementing the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation with Article 26.2.1 “Inadmissible Evidence”, which disposition, to the author’s opinion, can be constructed based on a similar norm of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, taking into account the specifics of administrative-delictual legislation.

About the authors

Gleb Nikolaevich Gluzdak

St. Petersburg Law Institute (branch) of the University of Public Prosecution Office of the Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Author for correspondence.
Email: g.gluzdak.mail@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6071-3350

student

Russian Federation

References

  1. Vetrova A.A. Proving as a process of learning the truth. Yurist-Pravoved, 2009, no. 2, pp. 26–29. EDN: KGCQCX.
  2. Surgutskov V.I., Bekmurzinova K.K. The principle of objective truth, substantiation and its subjects in cases of administrative traffic offences. NB: Administrativnoe pravo i praktika administrirovaniya, 2020, no. 4, pp. 79–93. doi: 10.7256/2306-9945.2020.4.34551.
  3. Garipov T.I. Significance of evidence in the theory of criminal procedure proof: problems and ways to solve them. Monitoring pravoprimeneniya, 2021, no. 4, pp. 74–81. doi: 10.21681/2226-0692-2021-4-74-81.
  4. Voplenko N.N., Davydova M.L. Legal definitions in the current Russian legislation. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo. Seriya: Pravo, 2001, no. 1, pp. 64–71. EDN: HROVCD.
  5. Nobel A.R. Determination of admissibility of evidence in administrative offences. Aktualnye problemy rossiyskogo prava, 2016, no. 1, pp. 76–84. doi: 10.17803/1994-1471.2016.62.1.076-084.
  6. Polyntsov K.A., Rudenko A.V. Dokazyvanie v delakh ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh [Evidence in administrative offense cases]. Simferopol, ARIAL Publ., 2020. 120 p. EDN: TJOSNY.
  7. Nedbaylo P.E. Primenenie sovetskikh pravovykh norm [The use of Soviet law]. Moscow, Gosyurizdat Publ., 1960. 511 p.
  8. Krasnov A.V. To a question on blanks in the law and ways of their completion and overcoming. Uchenye zapiski Kazanskogo filiala “Rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta pravosudiya”, 2018, vol. 14, pp. 19–27. EDN: UZSRYU.
  9. Baranov V.M. “Qualified Silence of the Legislator” as a General Legal Phenomenon. Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatelstve, 2008, no. 1, pp. 75–78. EDN: JWUCGP.
  10. Vasilev Yu.I. Qualified silence of the legislator as general legal phenomenon (formulation of the problem). Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoy akademii MVD Rossii, 2015, no. 1, pp. 227–230. EDN: TMQJKX.
  11. Popovich O.M. Artificial person: problems of administrative and criminal liability. Vestnik ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti, 2017, no. 2, pp. 89–94. EDN: YYZLVT.
  12. Kostenko M.A. Deficiency of law as a form of lawmaking error. Izvestiya YuFU. Tekhnicheskie nauki, 2008, no. 10, pp. 117–123. EDN: KAPDUB.
  13. Zaytseva E.S., Kozlovskiy P.V. Concept of legal colorable gaps and role of colorable gaps in mechanism of legal regulation. Sovremennoe pravo, 2015, no. 7, pp. 33–37. EDN: UBSHDP.
  14. Timoshenko I.V. Functional aspect of a protocol on administrative offense as a jurisdictional act. Lex Russica (Russkiy zakon), 2020, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 45–54. doi: 10.17803/1729-5920.2020.160.3.045-054.
  15. Murasheva L.F. The problem of the correctness of the drawing up the protocol about an administrative offense on preparation on the stage of preparation to hear the case of a justice of the peace. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii, 2013, no. 1, pp. 12–14. EDN: PYHWCT.
  16. Khakimova G.Sh. Linguistic studies of the speech genre of rumors in modern media discourse: a systematic review of Russian literature. Vestnik Bashkirskogo universiteta, 2021, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 804–812. doi: 10.33184/bulletin-bsu-2021.3.47.
  17. Abakumova E.B. Problems of rights protection businessmen at implementation of the state control (supervision), municipal control. Biznes v zakone. Ekonomiko-yuridicheskiy zhurnal, 2015, no. 4, pp. 75–79. EDN: UFGIRX.
  18. Umanskaya V.P. The balance of public and private interests in the state administration. Federalizm, 2017, no. 1, pp. 93–104. EDN: YJYCOB.
  19. Gerasimova N.R., Gadeeva A.E. Blanks in the right and ways of their elimination. Sotsialno-politicheskie nauki, 2012, no. 2, pp. 74–75. EDN: PAGQFH.
  20. Rudenko A.V., Polyntsov K.A. The legal distinction between the admissibility and inadmissibility of evidence in cases on administrative offenses. Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federalnogo universiteta imeni V.I. Vernadskogo. Yuridicheskie nauki, 2018, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 188–196. EDN: XRTVJR.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c)



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies