Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2019. Issue 4 (46)

Title: REPETITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES
Authors:

A. S. Telegin, Perm State University

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ORCID: 0000-0001-6944-2577
ResearcherID: ---
Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»:       ---

N. V. Tiunova, Perm State University

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ORCID: 0000-0002-8985-3653
ResearcherID: ---
Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»:       ---
Requisites: Telegin A. S., Tiunova N. V. Povtornost' soversheniya administrativnogo pravonarusheniya [Repetition of Administrative Offenses]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Juridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2019. Issue 46. Pp. 626–650. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2019-46-626-650
DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2019-46-626-650
Annotation:

Introduction: the article deals with the concept of repetition, problems of its statutory regulation and application in law enforcement practice by the executive and judicial bodies carrying out administrative proceedings. The main focus is on the problem of the variety of approaches to defining the legal sense and content of this concept. Analysis of the norms of the current Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (RF CAO) shows that repetition is applied as a circumstance that aggravates administrative liability, as an independent qualifying characteristic of the elements of offense, and as a criterion for defining a gross misconduct. At the same time, repeat commitment of an administrative offense is an administrative-prejudicial criterion for qualifying the act as a crime. In each of the above cases of applying the repetition, there is a number of problematic aspects which require a more focused attention of the legislator. This refers, first, to the legal meaning of the concept of similar nature and analogousness of the administrative offense commitment for applying repetition in compliance with the RF CAO, and second, to the necessity of legal regulation for the content of these notions directly in law but not in an act of judicial interpretation. There arises a question about the feasibility of having the institution of repeat commitment of analogous crime in the RF CAO as an aggravating circumstance together with the tendency of increasing the number of the crime elements containing repetition as an independent qualifying characteristic. Another important question is about the concept and the types of duplicity when applying repetition as an administrative-prejudicial criterion for qualifying acts punishable under criminal law. In some cases, a single commitment of an offense is enough for qualifying it; in other cases, offenses need to be committed several times (for example, twice or thrice). In many cases, criteria and signs of repetition are applied taking into account the judicial interpretation practice, with no specification in law. An important criterion for applying administrative-prejudicial norms in qualifying offenses is commitment of a similar offense by a person who previously underwent administrative punishment within the period established by Article 4.6 of the RF CAO. The practice of this norm application is rather questionable as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not always specify this period with reference to Article 4.6 of the RF CAO.  Purpose: to justify the current relevance of the chosen research topic; to provide a comparative analysis of statutory regulation of repetition in  administrative proceedings and scientific approaches to understanding the legal meaning of the ‘repetition’ concept; to show problematic aspects arising in practice when the concept of repetition is used for qualifying offenses and taking decisions on the punishment. Methods: dialectical method as a universal scientific instrument, general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, generalization, comparison, systemic and structural analysis) and specific scientific methods (formal juridical, formal logical, structural functional).
Results: the authors have formulated specific proposals aimed at improving modern legislation in Russia. The proposed measures would allow for optimizing the process of qualifying repeat administrative offenses, including when administrative-prejudicial norms are applied. Conclusions: the concept of repetition of administrative offenses, its legal content and practice of application require complex investigation. There is a need for further improvement and systematization of the RF CAO and RF Criminal Code norms that regulate the rules of applying repetition when qualifying offenses and awarding punishment.

Keywords: repeat administrative offense; administrative prejudice; duplicity; analogous offense; criminal liability for multiple or repeat administrative offense
  download the full-version article
References: 1. Bezhanov V. O. Osobennosti primeneniya povtornosti kak kvalificiruyuschego priznaka administrativnogo pravonarusheniya [Peculiarities of Use of Repeatability as a Qualifying Characteristic of an Administrative Offence]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya 'Yuridicheskie nauki' – RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. Series: Law. 2013. Issue 19 (120). Pp. 82-87. (In Russ.).
2. Kobzar'-Frolova M. N. Problemy naznacheniya administrativnykh nakazaniy za pravonarusheniya, sovershennye fizicheskim licom povtorno [The problems of Giving Administrative Penalties for Second Offences]. Ugolovno-ispol¬nitel'noe pravo – Penal Law. 2017. Vol. 12 (1-4). Issue 4. Pp. 498-501. (In Russ.).
3. Maslennikov M. Ya. Povtornost' kak kvalificiruyuschiy priznak administrativnogo pravonarusheniya [Repetition as a Qualificatory Sign of an Administrative Offense]. Zakon – ZAKON. 2008. Issue 9. Pp. 43–51. (In Russ.).
4. Malkov V. P. Neodnokratnost' pravonarusheniya i administrativnaya preyudiciya kak sredstva kriminalizacii i dekriminalizacii sodeyannogo v Rossiyskom ugolovnom prave [Repeatedness of Offences and Administrative Prejudice as Means of Criminalization or Decriminalization of Deeds Committed in the Russian Criminal Law]. Biblioteka kriminalista – Criminalist's Library. 2013. Issue 2(7). Pp. 179–186. (In Russ.).
5. Obukhova T. V. K voprosu o nekotorykh osobennostyakh konstruirovaniya norm s administrativnoy preyudiciey [Some Peculiarities of the Construction of Norms with Administrative Prejudice]. Vestnik Ural'skogo Yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii – Bulletin of the Ural Law Institute of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation. 2018. Issue 2. Pp. 83–85. (In Russ.).
6. Sidorenko E. L. Administrativnaya preyudiciya v ugolovnom prave: problemy pravoprimeneniya [Administrative Prejudice in Criminal Law: Law Enforcement Problems]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava – Journal of Russian Law. 2016. Issue 6. Pp. 128–130. (In Russ.).
7. Tarbagaev A. N. Administrativnaya otvetstvennost' v ugolovnom prave [Administrative Liability in Criminal Law]. Pravovedenie – Pravovedenie. 1992. Issue 2. Pp. 62–68. (In Russ.).
8. Tataryan V. G., Magomedov B. M. Opyt resheniya problem administrativnoy otvetstvennosti v sovremennom zakonodatel'stve FRG [An Attempt of Administrative Responsibility Problem–Solving in the Modern FRG Law]. Vestnik Ural'skogo instituta ekonomiki, upravleniya i prava – Bulletin of the Ural Institute of Economics, Management and Law. 2012. Issue 2 (19). Pp. 49–61. (In Russ.).
9. Kharlova M. I. Osobennosti sostava prestupleniya s administrativnoy preyudiciey [Features of the Elements on an Offence with Administrative Prejudicial Effect]. Aktual'nye problemy rossiyskogo prava – Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2016. Issue 8 (69). Pp. 136–143. (In Russ.).
10. Chikin D. S. Prestuplenie s administrativnoy preyudiciey kak vid slozhnogo edinichnogo prestupleniya [A Crime with an Administrative Collateral Estoppel as a Type of a Difficult Individual Crime]. Rossiyskiy sledovatel' – Russian Investigator. 2012. Issue 23. Pp. 17–18. (In Russ.).
11. Agildin V. V. Some aspects of the criminal law policy of cjunteracting traffic crimes (Using the example of art. 264.1 of the Criminal Code). Russian journal of criminology. 2016. Vol. 10. Issue 1. Pp. 117–125. (In Eng.)
12. Bjørnebekk G. Dispositions related to sensitivity in the neurological basis for activation of approach–avoidance motivation, antisocial attributes and individual differences in aggressive behavior. SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY. 2007. Vol. 35. Issue 9. Pp. 1251–1263. (In Eng.).
13. Deka D., Brown Ch. What do planning professionals, police and pedestrians in general think about distracted driving and walking? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2016. Issue 2582. Pp. 42–50. (In Eng.).
14. Dula Ch.S., Dwyer W.O., LeVerne G. Policing the drunk driver: Measuring law enforcement involvement in reducing alcohol–impaired driving. Journal of Safety Research. 2007. Vol. 38. Issue 3. Pp. 267–272. (In Eng.).
15. Geller E. The Law on Violations of the Order. 14th ed. Munich: BEC, 2006. 130 p. (In Eng.).
16. Groff E., Taniguchi T. Quantifying Crime Prevention Potential of Near–Repeat Burglary. Police Quarterly. September 2019. Vol. 22. Issue 3. Pp. 330–359. (In Eng.).
17. Groff E., Taniguchi T. Using citizen notification to interrupt near-repeat residential burglary patterns: the micro-level near-repeat experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology. June 2019. Vol. 15. Issue 2. Pp. 115–149. (In Eng.).
18. Polo Roca A. Analysing certain violations provided for in the organic law on the protection of public safety involving the security forces. Revista Catalana de Dret Públic. June 2019. Issue 58. Pp. 195–207. (In Eng.).
19. Raub R. A., Wark R. I., Lucke R. E. Seeking a reduction in aggressive driving through different strategies. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2002. Issue 1. Pp. 22–29. (In Eng.).
20. Stokes N., Clare J. Preventing near-repeat residential burglary through cocooning: post hoc evaluation of a targeted police-led pilot intervention. Security Journal. March 2019. Vol. 32. Issue 1. Pp. 45–62. (In Eng.).
21. Ilyin I. V., Shevchenko O. A. Problems of realization of institute of the administrative prejudice at qualification and investigation of violation of the rules of traffic by the person subjected to administrative punishment (art. 264.1 of the Criminal code of Russian Federation). Legal Science and Practice: Journal of Nizny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2016. Issue 2. Pp. 156–161. (In Eng.).
22. Zhmurov D. V. Criminal drink-driving: a look of a law enforcement agent and perspectives of prevention. Tomsk State University Journal. 2018. Issue 430. Pp. 174–179. (In Eng.)
Received: 15.06.2019
Financing: ---
The Perm State University
614068, Perm, street Bukireva, 15 (Faculty of Law), +7 (342) 2 396 275
vesturn@yandex.ru
ISSN 1995-4190 ISSN (eng.) 2618-8104
ISSN (online) 2658-7106
DOI 10.17072/1995-4190
(с) Editorial board, 2010
The magazine is registered in Federal Agency of supervision in sphere of communication and mass communications.
The certificate on registration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-33087 from September, 5th, 2008
The certificate on reregistration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-53189 from Marth, 14th, 2013

The magazine is included in List ВАК and in the Russian index of scientific citing

The founder & Publisher: the State educational institution of the higher training
“The Perm State University”.
Publishing 4 times a year