RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
22/10/2024
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
22 October 
1970 Joseph Brodsky received the Nobel Prize in Literature.
1970 The Pope overturned the verdict of 1633, condemning Galileo.
1970 Bankers' Panic or Knickerbocker Crisis.
22 October
1970 Joseph Brodsky received the Nobel Prize in Literature.
1970 The Pope overturned the verdict of 1633, condemning Galileo.
1970 Bankers' Panic or Knickerbocker Crisis.
THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE EXPANDS THE PREFERENTIAL PROCEDURE FOR PAYING FINES BY BUSINESSES
The Ministry of Justice has developed amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences, expanding the conditions for the application of a preferential procedure for the payment of fines applied to companies as a result of inspections. The bill was published for public discussion.
At the moment, in accordance with Parts 1.3-3 of Article 32.2 of the Administrative Code, if a violation is detected by a prosecutor's check that does not relate to state or municipal control, it is impossible to pay an administrative fine on a preferential basis. The fine can be reduced if a violation is detected at the state control. Such provisions of the law violate the right of business to benefits. To eliminate this contradiction, the Ministry of Justice proposed to determine that a 50% discount is applied upon the commission of a violation, and not its detection during control (supervisory) activities, as is currently the case.
The amendments were developed in pursuance of the Constitutional Court's Decision No. 39-P. In July, the Constitutional Court drew attention to the fact that a business cannot be deprived of the right to preferential payment of fines only on the basis that the violation was discovered by the prosecutor, and not by the state or municipal control services.
The Constitutional Court pointed out that the restrictive interpretation of Part 1.3-3 of Article 32.2 of the Administrative Code, which is popular in practice, puts in an unequal position those brought to justice whose violations consist in non-compliance with the same requirements, but were revealed in the performance of state control functions of various types.
This interpretation does not meet the goals of introducing the possibility of preferential payment of a fine by the legislator. The controversial provision of the law can be considered as providing additional guarantees to businesses when being held accountable, including the detection of violations by the prosecutor. However, the purpose of this provision is not fully realized by its literal content. The reference to state control in the norm is not specified by reference to the law "On State Control", which makes violators expect that they will be given benefits to pay fines even if the prosecutor's office has revealed a violation, the Constitutional Court noted.
As a result, the Constitutional Court recommended amendments to the legislation.
At the moment, in accordance with Parts 1.3-3 of Article 32.2 of the Administrative Code, if a violation is detected by a prosecutor's check that does not relate to state or municipal control, it is impossible to pay an administrative fine on a preferential basis. The fine can be reduced if a violation is detected at the state control. Such provisions of the law violate the right of business to benefits. To eliminate this contradiction, the Ministry of Justice proposed to determine that a 50% discount is applied upon the commission of a violation, and not its detection during control (supervisory) activities, as is currently the case.
The amendments were developed in pursuance of the Constitutional Court's Decision No. 39-P. In July, the Constitutional Court drew attention to the fact that a business cannot be deprived of the right to preferential payment of fines only on the basis that the violation was discovered by the prosecutor, and not by the state or municipal control services.
The Constitutional Court pointed out that the restrictive interpretation of Part 1.3-3 of Article 32.2 of the Administrative Code, which is popular in practice, puts in an unequal position those brought to justice whose violations consist in non-compliance with the same requirements, but were revealed in the performance of state control functions of various types.
This interpretation does not meet the goals of introducing the possibility of preferential payment of a fine by the legislator. The controversial provision of the law can be considered as providing additional guarantees to businesses when being held accountable, including the detection of violations by the prosecutor. However, the purpose of this provision is not fully realized by its literal content. The reference to state control in the norm is not specified by reference to the law "On State Control", which makes violators expect that they will be given benefits to pay fines even if the prosecutor's office has revealed a violation, the Constitutional Court noted.
As a result, the Constitutional Court recommended amendments to the legislation.
26.08.2024
