127/2017-5896(1)
FOURTEENTH ARBITRATION CASE
COURT OF APPEAL
st. Batyushkova, 12, Vologda, 160001
http://site
P O S T A N O V L E N I
The operative part of the resolution was announced on January 31, 2017 .
The resolution was issued in full on February 7, 2017.
The Fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal, composed of presiding Smirnov V.I., judges Dokshina A.Yu. and Murakhina N.V.
when keeping the minutes by the secretary of the court session Yandourova E.A.,
with the participation of entrepreneur Koshunyaev V.V., from the management of Mazkova E.V. by power of attorney dated 01/09/2017,
Having considered in open court the appeal of individual entrepreneur Vitaly Vasilyevich Koshunyaev against the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Arkhangelsk Region dated November 14, 2016 in case No. A05-10558/2016 (judge I.V. Bystrov),
u st a n o v i l:
Individual entrepreneur Koshunyaev Vitaly Vasilievich (OGRNIP 312290314300034; place of residence: 164900, Arkhangelsk region, Novodvinsk) appealed to the Arkhangelsk Region Arbitration Court with an application to the Department of State Road Supervision for the Arkhangelsk Region and the Nenets Autonomous District of the Federal Service for Supervision of Transport (OGRN 1022 900536010 , TIN 2901043148; location: 163060, Arkhangelsk, Uritsky Street, building 47; hereinafter referred to as the department, administrative body) on the cancellation of the resolution in the case of an administrative offense dated September 19, 2016 No. 1302, by which the entrepreneur was found guilty of committing an administrative offense, provided for by Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), and by which he was given an administrative penalty in the form of a fine in the amount of 300,000 rubles.
By the decision of the Arkhangelsk Regional Arbitration Court dated November 14, 2016, the management resolution No. 1302 dated September 19, 2016 was declared illegal and amended in terms of imposing an administrative penalty in the form of a fine in the amount of 300,000 rubles; the entrepreneur was sentenced to a fine in the amount of 150,000 rubles.
The entrepreneur did not agree with the court decision and filed an appeal, in which he asks the appealed judicial act to be canceled and a new judicial act to be adopted in the case. In support of the complaint, he points to the absence of an event and elements of an administrative offense, liability for which is provided for in Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, since the fact of regularity of transportation has not been established, the transportation was carried out by order.
In its response, the department refuted the arguments of the complaint and asked that the appealed judicial act be left unchanged and the complaint not satisfied.
At the court hearing, the entrepreneur supported the arguments of the complaint, believes that the testimony of witnesses has inaccuracies, the sign indicating route No. 144 on the bus was preserved by accident, the bus was ordered by the incumbent - the limited liability company "Format Plus" (hereinafter referred to as "Format Plus LLC") for the transportation of an indefinite number of persons participating in a medical examination, a waybill was issued in order to obtain a mark from a medical worker. The representative of the department referred to the testimony of witnesses, the presence of a sign on the bus indicating the route of regular transportation, and well-known facts that were given in the court decision.
Having heard the explanations of the representatives of the parties, examined the evidence in the case, and checked the legality and validity of the appealed decision, the appellate court finds no grounds for satisfying the appeal.
As follows from the case materials, on July 19, 2016 at 13:00 near house No. 7 on the street. Roza Shanina in Arkhangelsk, during joint planned control and supervisory activities carried out by the management and the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Arkhangelsk, bus 222702 (state registration plate M168NN/29) under the control of driver A.I. Degtyarev, moving along public route No. 144 "g. Arkhangelsk - Novodvinsk" and transporting passengers.
On the specified vehicle there were information plates “Custom”, as well as an information plate indicating the route number 144 “G. Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk."
When checking documents, driver A.I. Degtyarev presented a driver's license, a vehicle registration certificate, a bus waybill dated July 19, 2016, a lease agreement for a vehicle without a crew dated December 15, 2014, and a work order for the provision of a vehicle for transportation upon request. From the waybill dated 07/19/2016 and from the rental agreement for a vehicle without a crew dated 12/15/2014, the department established that the transportation of passengers on the specified bus was carried out by V.V. Koshunyaev, who was issued license No. ACC-29-201336 by the department on 08/17/2012 to carry out activities for the transportation of passengers by road transport equipped for the transport of more than 8 people. The department established that the driver Degtyarev A.I. there was no map of the regular transportation route.
The department received explanations from driver A.I. Degtyarev on July 19, 2016 and July 22, 2016. In addition, on July 19, 2016, the department received testimony from witness N.A. Tolkacheva, and on August 22, 2016, it received testimony from witness Y.S. Tarazanova, who were passengers on the said bus.
Based on the results of this control event, the department saw in the behavior of the entrepreneur signs of an administrative offense provided for in Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, expressed in the use of a bus for regular transportation of passengers in the absence of a map of the route of regular transportation in the event that the presence of such a card is mandatory.
On this fact, Deputy Head of the Department of Motor Transport and Highway Supervision of the Department Veprev A.I. On September 1, 2016, he drew up protocol No. 530 regarding an administrative offense against the entrepreneur in his presence, as provided for in Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
As indicated in this protocol, on July 19, 2016 at 13:00 in the area of house No. 7 on the street. Roza Shanina in Arkhangelsk, an entrepreneur, using a vehicle - bus 222702 (state registration plate M168NN/29) under the control of driver A.I. Degtyarev, transported passengers along the public suburban bus route No. 144 ". Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk" in violation of the requirements of the Federal Law of July 13, 2015 No. 220-FZ "On the organization of regular transportation of passengers and luggage by road and urban ground electric transport in the Russian Federation and on amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter - Law No. 220-FZ), since the bus driver Degtyarev A.I. there was no map of the regular transportation route.
The materials of the case regarding the administrative offense were considered on September 16, 2016 by the senior state inspector of the department of motor transport and highway supervision of the department Volsky P.A. in the presence of the entrepreneur. Based on the results of the consideration of the case of an administrative offense, resolution No. 1302 was adopted on September 19, 2016 (the operative part of the resolution was announced on September 16, 2016).
In this resolution, the administrative body came to the conclusion that there was an event of an administrative offense, liability for which is provided for in Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, as well as to the conclusion that the entrepreneur was guilty of committing this offense. The conclusions of the administrative body set out in the resolution served as the basis for bringing the entrepreneur to administrative liability, provided for in Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and imposing an administrative penalty on him in the form of a fine in the amount of 300,000 rubles.
The entrepreneur did not agree with this resolution and filed an application with the arbitration court.
The first court declared the management resolution No. 1302 dated September 19, 2016 to be illegal and amended in terms of imposing an administrative penalty in the form of a fine in the amount of 300,000 rubles; the entrepreneur was sentenced to a fine in the amount of 150,000 rubles.
The Board of Appeal considers this judicial act not subject to cancellation for the following reasons.
By virtue of Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the use of a bus, tram or trolleybus for regular transportation of passengers in the absence of a regular transportation route map, if the presence of such a map is mandatory, entails the imposition of an administrative fine on legal entities in the amount of three hundred thousand rubles.
For administrative offenses provided for in this article, persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity bear administrative liability as legal entities.
According to paragraph 20 of part 1 of Article 3 of Law No. 220-FZ, a regular transportation route map is a document containing information about the regular transportation route and the vehicle that can be used for transportation along this route.
In accordance with Part 3 of Article 35 of Law No. 220-FZ, the driver of a vehicle used for regular transportation is required to carry with him and provide for inspection to officials of the state transport control body a map of the regular transportation route.
By virtue of Article 40 of this Law, administrative liability under Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for the lack of route maps is introduced on July 15, 2016.
From Part 3 of Article 17 of Law No. 220-FZ, it follows that a map of a municipal regular transport route, an intermunicipal regular transport route, an adjacent interregional regular transport route is issued for each vehicle used for regular transport on the corresponding route.
According to Part 1 of Article 35 of Law No. 220-FZ, the driver of a vehicle used for regular transportation is required to carry with him and provide for inspection to officials of the state transport control body a map of the regular transportation route.
According to the case materials, on July 19, 2016 at 1 p.m. in the area of house No. 7 on the street. Roza Shanina in Arkhangelsk, an entrepreneur, using a vehicle - bus 222702 (state registration plate M168NN/29) under the control of driver A.I. Degtyarev, transported passengers along the public suburban bus route No. 144 ". Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk" in violation of the requirements of Law No. 220-FZ, since the bus driver Degtyarev A.I. there was no map of the regular transportation route.
This offense is confirmed by a body of evidence received by the administrative body in compliance with the requirements of the law, namely: a routine (raid) inspection report dated July 19, 2016 No. 185, photographs of the bus attached to it, photographs of documents presented by the driver A.I. Degtyarev. (waybill, bus dated July 19, 2016, rental agreement for a vehicle without a crew dated December 15, 2014, vehicle registration certificate), testimony of witnesses Tolkacheva N.A. and Tarazanova Y.S., who were traveling on the said bus as passengers.
The photographs attached to the scheduled (raid) inspection report dated July 19, 2016 No. 185 confirm the presence of passengers in the bus; on the right side of the bus body in the direction of travel of the vehicle there is a route indicator for regular passenger transportation No. 144 “Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk”. From those recorded by management on July 19, 2016 at 1 p.m. at the bus stop, testimony of witness N.A. Tolkacheva. It follows that on July 19, 2016 at 12 noon. 50 min. she boarded bus 222702 (state registration plate M168NN/29) on the street. Roza Shanina in Arkhangelsk, there was a sign on the bus with route number 144. According to the testimony of Tolkacheva N.A. She hadn’t paid for the fare yet, she was going to pay 75 rubles for the fare in Novodvinsk, she hadn’t ordered a bus, and she didn’t know anyone on the bus. From the testimony of witness Tarazanova Yu.S., later received by the administrative body. It follows that on July 19, 2016, at approximately 12:50 p.m., she boarded bus 222702 (state registration plate M168NN/29) at the Marine River Station in Arkhangelsk. There was a sign on the bus with the route number 144 “G. Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk." When boarding the bus, she paid the bus driver 75 rubles for the journey. She doesn’t remember whether the driver issued a ticket. When boarding the bus, the rest of the passengers also paid the fare to Novodvinsk in the amount of 75 rubles. According to the testimony of Tarazanova Yu.S. she did not order the specified bus anywhere, she boarded it as if it were a regular “minibus” carrying out transportation along route No. 144 “city. Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk." According to Y.S. Tarazanova, no charter agreement or work order was concluded with her, and she does not know any other passengers on board the bus. After control measures were completed by management and traffic police officers, the bus continued moving along route No. 144.
The appellate court has no reason to believe that the testimony of witnesses is unreliable or inadmissible evidence, taking into account the applicant’s arguments that they could not know the exact number and make of the vehicle.
Without disputing the very fact of transporting passengers on the specified bus, the applicant argued that he carried out the transportation of passengers by order on the basis of an order for the provision of a vehicle for the transport of passengers of an indefinite number of persons dated July 19, 2016, concluded with the charterer Vasily Gennadievich Tarakanov, a representative of Format Plus LLC " In the appeal, the appellant also referred to the presence of the specified work order, to the presence of “Custom” signs placed on the bus, to the explanations of the driver A.I. Degtyarev, as well as to the testimony of V.G. Tarakanov himself, interviewed at the request of the applicant 09/16/2016.
The court of first instance rightly considered the applicant's arguments to be unconvincing.
Article 784 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) stipulates that the transportation of goods, passengers and luggage is carried out on the basis of a contract of carriage. General conditions of transportation are determined by transport charters and codes, other laws and rules issued in accordance with them. The conditions for the transportation of goods, passengers and luggage by certain types of transport, as well as the responsibility of the parties for these transportations, are determined by agreement of the parties, unless otherwise established by this Code, transport charters and codes, other laws and rules issued in accordance with them.
By virtue of Article 787 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a charter agreement (charter), one party (charterer) undertakes to provide the other party (charterer) for a fee with all or part of the capacity of one or more vehicles for one or more flights for the transportation of goods, passengers and luggage. The procedure for concluding a charter agreement, as well as the form of the said agreement, are established by transport charters and codes.
Part 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law of November 8, 2007 No. 259-FZ “Charter of Automobile and Urban Ground Electric Transport” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 259-FZ) also provides that the transportation of passengers and luggage upon request is carried out by a vehicle provided on the basis of an agreement charter concluded in writing.
According to parts 2 and 3 of Article 27 of Law No. 259-FZ, the charter agreement specified in Part 1 of this article must include: 1) information about the charterer and the charterer; 2) the type of vehicle provided (if necessary, the number of vehicles); 3) route and place of delivery of the vehicle; 4) a certain or indefinite circle of persons for whose transportation the vehicle is provided; 5) terms of transportation; 6) the amount of payment for using the vehicle; 7) the procedure for admitting passengers to board a vehicle, established taking into account the requirements stipulated by the rules for the transportation of passengers (if the vehicle is provided for the transportation of a certain circle of persons).
The charter agreement specified in part 1 of this article may include other conditions not specified in part 2 of this article. If there is no need to carry out systematic transportation of passengers and luggage on request, the charter agreement specified in part 1 of this article is concluded in the form of an order for the provision of a vehicle for the transportation of passengers and luggage. The details and procedure for filling out such a work order are established by the rules for the carriage of passengers (Part 4 of Article 27 of Law No. 259-FZ).
By virtue of clause 89 of the Rules for the transportation of passengers and luggage by road and urban ground electric transport, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated February 14, 2009 No. 112 (hereinafter referred to as Rules No. 112), the transportation of passengers and luggage upon request is carried out by a vehicle provided on the basis of an agreement chartering, the terms of which are determined by agreement of the parties in accordance with Article 27 of Law No. 259-FZ.
The charter agreement may provide for the use of vehicles for the transportation of a certain circle of persons or an indefinite circle of persons (clause 90 of Rules No. 112).
A charter agreement providing for the use of vehicles for the transportation of a certain group of persons establishes the procedure for allowing these persons to board the vehicle in accordance with paragraph 92 of these Rules (paragraph 91 of Rules No. 112).
By virtue of paragraph 92 of Rules No. 112 of transportation, boarding of persons specified in the charter agreement into a vehicle provided for the registered transportation of passengers and luggage is carried out upon presentation by these persons to the charterer of documents (service ID, excursion voucher, etc.) certifying their right to travel in this vehicle, and/or in accordance with the passenger list provided to the charterer by the charterer.
Clause 94 of Rules No. 112 establishes that the charter agreement or a copy thereof must be with the driver from the beginning to the end of the transportation of passengers and luggage on order and must be presented upon request of officials of the federal executive authorities authorized to monitor the availability of drivers such documents. At the same time, by virtue of paragraph 95 of these Rules, a vehicle provided for the transportation of passengers and luggage on order must be decorated with signs with the inscription “Custom”, placed: above the windshield of the vehicle and (or) in the upper part of the windshield; on the right side of the body along the direction of the vehicle; on the rear window of the vehicle. The short name of the freighter is indicated above the windshield and (or) on the right side of the body along the direction of the vehicle (clause 97 of Rules No. 112).
The Board of Appeal supports the conclusion of the appealed decision that in this case the entrepreneur, under the guise of transporting an indefinite number of persons on order, actually carried out regular transportation of passengers and luggage along a certain route for a fee.
Testimony of witnesses Tolkacheva N.A. and Tarazanova Yu.S. refute the authenticity of the work order, as well as the testimony of witness V.G. Tarakanov. and explanations from the driver Degtyarev A.I.
Under such circumstances, the court came to the correct conclusion that the administrative body had proven the fact that Koshunyaev V.V. 07/19/2016 transportation of passengers by bus on the public suburban bus route No. 144 “G. Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk." When carrying out such transportation, the applicant was required to have a map of the regular transportation route. Since the applicant carried out the transportation of passengers along the specified route on July 19, 2016 using a bus and did not have a map of the regular transportation route, the department came to a reasonable conclusion that in this case there was an administrative violation event provided for in Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Part 1 of Article 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides that a person is subject to administrative liability only for those administrative offenses for which his guilt has been established. At the same time, a person brought to administrative responsibility is not obliged to prove his innocence (Part 3 of Article 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).
According to Article 2.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, an administrative offense is recognized as an unlawful, guilty action (inaction) of an individual or legal entity for which administrative liability is established by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses.
The guilt of an individual entrepreneur as an individual in the form of intent or negligence must be established and proven by an administrative body in accordance with Article 2.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which provides that 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 (part 1). An administrative offense is recognized as committed through negligence if the person who committed it foresaw the possibility of harmful consequences of his action (inaction), but without sufficient grounds for this, he arrogantly counted on preventing such consequences or did not foresee the possibility of such consequences, although he should have and could have had them. foresee (part 2).
Investigating the issue of the entrepreneur’s guilt, the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the entrepreneur created the appearance of legality of the transportation carried out through formal document flow.
Thus, the appellate court believes that the presence of an administrative offense in the behavior of the entrepreneur has been proven and that his bringing to administrative liability under Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is justified.
The procedure established by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for proceedings in a case of an administrative offense has not been violated by the administrative body.
The statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility established by Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation was also observed by the administrative body.
The court of appeal, taking into account the established factual circumstances of the commission of the offense and the degree of its social danger, did not see in the actions of the entrepreneur signs of an insignificant administrative offense and grounds for applying the provisions of Article 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
The measure of responsibility by the administrative body is determined within the limits of the sanction provided for in Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
In the case under consideration, the applicant is liable as a legal entity; the administrative fine in accordance with Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is determined in the amount of three hundred thousand rubles; The sanctions of this norm do not provide for the possibility of applying an alternative punishment (administrative warning).
At the same time, the judicial panel believes that the court of first instance, justifiably, in accordance with Part 3 of Article 211 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, recognized the decision challenged by the company in the case of an administrative offense as illegal in terms of imposing a fine on the entrepreneur in an amount exceeding 150,000 rubles, based on the following.
According to Part 3 of Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, when imposing an administrative penalty on a legal entity, the nature of the administrative offense committed by it, the property and financial position of the legal entity, circumstances mitigating administrative liability, and circumstances aggravating administrative liability are taken into account.
In accordance with Part 4 of Article 3 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, legal proceedings in arbitration courts are carried out in accordance with federal laws in force during the resolution of a dispute and consideration of a case, the commission of a separate procedural action or the execution of a judicial act.
Similar provisions are enshrined in Part 3 of Article 1.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, according to which proceedings in a case of an administrative offense are carried out on the basis of the law in force during the proceedings in the specified case.
Federal Law No. 515-FZ dated December 31, 2014 amended Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in accordance with which this norm was supplemented, inter alia, with parts 3.2 and 3.3 of the following content:
- in the presence of exceptional circumstances related to the nature of the administrative offense committed and its consequences, the property and financial status of the legal entity brought to administrative responsibility, a judge, body, official considering cases of administrative offenses or complaints, protests against decisions and (or) decisions in cases of administrative offenses, they may impose a penalty in the form of an administrative fine in an amount less than the minimum amount of the administrative fine provided for by the relevant article or part of the article of Section II of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, if the minimum amount of the administrative fine for legal entities is at least one hundred thousand rubles;
- when imposing an administrative penalty in accordance with Part 3.2 of this article, the amount of the administrative fine cannot be less than half the minimum amount of the administrative fine provided for legal entities by the corresponding article or part of the article of Section II of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Guided by these principles, and also taking into account such criteria as fairness and proportionality of administrative punishment, the absence of both circumstances aggravating administrative responsibility and circumstances mitigating administrative responsibility, the socially significant activity carried out by an entrepreneur in the transportation of passengers by road, as well as the fact that the offense provided for in Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation was committed by the applicant for the first time, the court of first instance lawfully reduced the amount of the administrative fine to the minimum possible for the above offense.
Thus, the contested resolution No. 1302 dated September 19, 2016 is legitimately declared illegal and changed in terms of the imposed punishment.
The case was considered by the court of first instance fully and comprehensively, the norms of substantive and procedural law were not violated, the court's conclusions correspond to the evidence available in the case. There are no grounds for canceling the court decision; the appeal cannot be satisfied.
Guided by Articles 269, 271 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the Fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal
p o st a n o v i l:
The decision of the Arkhangelsk Regional Arbitration Court of November 14, 2016 in case No. A05-10558/2016 is left unchanged, the appeal of individual entrepreneur Vitaly Vasilyevich Koshunyaev is not satisfied.
The resolution may be appealed to the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District within a period not exceeding two months from the date of its adoption.
Presiding | IN AND. Smirnov |
A.Yu. Dokshina Solution from September 27, 2016In case No. 12-374/2016 Accepted Sovetsky District Court of Tula (Tula Region)
1. Boarding a bus, tram or trolleybus or disembarking passengers from a bus, tram or trolleybus in undesignated places - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on the driver in the amount of three thousand rubles. 2. Repeated commission of an administrative offense provided for in part 1 of this article - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on the driver in the amount of five thousand rubles. 3. Parking at night a bus, tram or trolleybus used for regular passenger transportation outside the designated areas - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on the driver in the amount of five thousand rubles; for officials - ten thousand rubles; for legal entities - twenty thousand rubles. 4. Using a bus, tram or trolleybus for regular transportation of passengers in the absence of a map of the route of regular transportation in the event that the presence of such a map is mandatory - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on the driver in the amount of five thousand rubles; for officials - thirty thousand rubles; for legal entities - three hundred thousand rubles. 5. Using a bus, tram or trolleybus with characteristics other than those provided for by the regular transport route map - shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of ten thousand rubles; for legal entities - twenty thousand rubles. Note. For administrative offenses provided for in this article, persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity bear administrative liability as legal entities. Judicial practice under Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative OffensesRuling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 10, 2018 N 303-AD18-5141 in case N A04-6880/2017 Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Pershutov A.G., having studied, based on the materials of the requested case, the cassation appeal of the East Siberian Interregional Department of State Road Supervision of the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Transport against the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Amur Region dated 01.09.2017 in case No. A04-6880/ 2017, resolution of the Sixth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated November 2, 2017 and resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District dated February 27, 2018 on the same case on the application of individual entrepreneur Alexander Vladimirovich Sidorenko to the East Siberian Interregional Department of State Road Supervision of the Federal Service for Supervision in Transport for recognition illegal and cancellation of the resolution of May 25, 2017 N 1864/Ts on bringing to administrative liability provided for in part 4 of article 11.33 Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 3, 2018 N 308-AD18-10802 in case N A63-16935/2016 at the request of the individual entrepreneur Galina Alekseevna Naydenova to recognize as illegal and cancel the resolution of the territorial department of state road supervision for the Stavropol Territory of the Interregional Territorial Administration of the Federal Service for Supervision of Transport in the North Caucasus Federal District dated November 14, 2016 N 003942 on bringing to administrative liability in part 4 Article 11.33 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses and sentencing in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 300,000 rubles, Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 15, 2018 N 310-AD18-15614 in case N A08-5943/2017 In relation to the driver Pereverzev A.Yu. a protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up and a resolution dated 07/05/2017 N 21700262 was issued on bringing to administrative liability on the basis of part 4 of article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation with the imposition of punishment in the form of a warning. The vehicle seized by arrest protocol dated 01.06.2017 N 1170235 as a security measure in the case of an administrative offense was returned to citizen A.Yu. Pereverzev. in connection with the completion of proceedings in the case of an administrative offense. Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 14, 2019 N 57-AD19-1 Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Nikiforov S.B., having considered the complaint of Moraru Ivan Yakovlevich against the resolution dated January 29, 2019, N 311060004, which entered into legal force, issued by the state inspector of the territorial department of motor transport, road supervision and control of international road transport in the Belgorod region of the South-Eastern MUGADN Central Federal District, decision of the judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Belgorod dated 03/20/2018 N 12-140/2018, decision of the judge of the Belgorod Regional Court dated 05/07/2018 N 7(2)-239 and resolution of the chairman of the Belgorod Regional Court dated 08/29/2018 N 4A- 457/2018, held in relation to Moraru Ivan Yakovlevich (hereinafter - Moraru I.Ya.) in the case of an administrative offense under Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 15, 2019 N 57-AD19-2 Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation S.B. Nikiforov, having considered the complaint of Nikolai Fedorovich Shevtsov against the decision dated April 16, 2018 N 311010032, which entered into legal force, issued by the senior state inspector of the territorial department of motor transport, road supervision and control of international road transport in the Belgorod region of the South-Eastern MUGADN Central Federal District, decision of the judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Belgorod dated 06.06.2018 N 12-264/2018, decision of the judge of the Belgorod Regional Court dated 06.08.2018 N 7(2)-508 and resolution of the acting chairman of the Belgorod Regional Court dated 16.10.2018 N 4A-619/2018, held in relation to Shevtsov Nikolay Fedorovich (hereinafter - Shevtsov N.F.) in the case of an administrative offense under Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 18, 2019 N 57-AD19-5 Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation S.B. Nikiforov, having considered the complaint of Andrey Aleksandrovich Artamonov against the decision No. 885 dated 02.11.2017, which entered into legal force, issued by the state inspector of the territorial department of motor transport, road supervision and control of international road transport in the Belgorod region of the South-Eastern MUGADN Central Federal District, decision of the judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Belgorod dated 03/06/2018 N 12-33/2018, decision of the judge of the Belgorod Regional Court dated 06/18/2018 N 7(2)-337 and resolution of the Chairman of the Belgorod Regional Court dated 08/28/2018 N 4A- 489/2018, held in relation to Artamonov Andrey Aleksandrovich (hereinafter referred to as Artamonov A.A.) in the case of an administrative offense under Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 25, 2019 N 57-AD19-6 Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Nikiforov S.B., having considered the complaint of Sakhno Vasily Valerievich against the resolution dated April 16, 2018 N 311010030, which entered into legal force, issued by the senior state inspector of the territorial department of motor transport, road supervision and control of international road transport in the Belgorod region of the South-Eastern MUGADN Central Federal District, decision of the judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Belgorod dated 06.26.2018 N 12-290/2018, decision of the judge of the Belgorod Regional Court dated 06.08.2018 N 7(2)-518 and resolution of the acting chairman of the Belgorod Regional Court dated 22.10.2018 N 4A-652/2018, held in relation to Vasily Valerievich Sakhno (hereinafter referred to as V.V. Sakhno) in the case of an administrative offense under Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated February 28, 2019 N 286-O 1. Agattransavto LLC challenges the constitutionality of Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which provides for administrative liability in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of three hundred thousand rubles for legal entities for using a bus, tram or trolleybus for regular transportation of passengers in the absence of a map of the route of regular transportation in in case the presence of such a card is mandatory. Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 1, 2019 N 57-AD19-7 Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation S.B. Nikiforov, having considered the complaint of Nikolai Fedorovich Shevtsov against the resolution dated April 20, 2018 N 311010049, which entered into legal force, issued by the state inspector of the territorial department of motor transport, road supervision and control of international road transport in the Belgorod region of the South-Eastern MUGADN Central Federal District, decision of the judge of the Sverdlovsk District Court of the city of Belgorod dated 06/04/2018 N 12-206/2018, decision of the judge of the Belgorod Regional Court dated 07/16/2018 N 7(2)-400/2018 and resolution of the Deputy Chairman of the Belgorod Regional Court dated 10/10/2018 N 4A-599/2018, held in relation to Shevtsov Nikolay Fedorovich (hereinafter - Shevtsov N.F.) in the case of an administrative offense under Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 2, 2019 N 308-AD18-10802 in case N A63-16935/2016 Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Pershutov A.G., having studied the cassation appeal of the individual entrepreneur Galina Alekseevna Naydenova against the ruling of the Sixteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 08/22/2018 in case No. A63-16935/2016 of the Arbitration Court of the Stavropol Territory and the decision of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District dated 12/05/2018 in the same case at the request of the individual entrepreneur Galina Alekseevna Naydenova to review, based on newly discovered circumstances, the decision of the Sixteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 12/12/2017, taking into account the ruling to correct a typo dated 12/14/2017 in the said case at the request of the individual entrepreneur Galina Alekseevna Naydenova to The territorial department of state road supervision for the Stavropol Territory of the Interregional Territorial Administration of the Federal Service for Supervision of Transport for the North Caucasus District on declaring illegal and canceling the resolution of November 14, 2016 N 003942 on bringing to administrative liability, provided for in Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses, Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 1, 2019 N 57-AD19-8 Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Nikiforov S.B., having considered the complaint of Chekhovsky Alexander Stefanovich against the decision dated May 24, 2018 N 311010089, which entered into legal force, issued by the state inspector of the territorial department of motor transport, road supervision and control of international road transport in the Belgorod region of the South-Eastern Mugadn Central Federal District, decision of the judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Belgorod dated July 10, 2018 N 12-358/2018, decision of the judge of the Belgorod Regional Court dated September 3, 2018 N 7(2)-624 and resolution of the Deputy Chairman of the Belgorod Regional Court dated November 15, 2018 N 4A- 726/2018, held in relation to Chekhovsky Alexander Stefanovich (hereinafter - Chekhovsky A.S.) in the case of an administrative offense under Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, Popular Code ArticlesLegislation
Read also
|