The Ministry of Internal Affairs has requested of the Supreme court official explanations on some infringements
Department of safety of traffic of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia has sent to the Supreme court the letter with the request to make official explanations, how to qualify some infringements of rules.
Questions both at car inspectors, and at drivers began to arise after the recent changes brought in the Code about administrative offences.
According to experts of GAI, in separate road situations there were contradictions between the norms put in the Traffic regulation and KoAP. In the letter in the Supreme court schemes of such infringements, and concrete disputable cases contain also. The superior court decision as in these cases to punish the person at the wheel, becomes obligatory for car inspectors. The price of a question for the driver is great. Now for the same infringement it can pay both the easy penalty, and deprivation of the rights.
the Greatest different interpretations have arisen, when the car moves a backing. At us as anywhere like to maneuver dangerously thus, moreover on decent speed. In what else country the driver, having seen a stopper, starts to move back quickly against the general movement? And in our streets is a usual practice. For it punishment is necessary, but only when a backing cross a crossroads. It is possible to pass thus both kilometre, and two, without risking neither money, nor the rights. Here such blank in the road legislation which reckless drivers perfectly use.
After amendments to rules and KoAP the question became disputable how to consider movement by a backing along the street with one-way traffic? Like this question of doubts would not cause: rules do not forbid such maneuver. However not all so is simple. In edition the reader has addressed. It has got to such situation. For what reasons it needed to hand over a backing - from the big highway on unilateral street. Also has passed - that a little, and to it the inspector already runs and a stick swings: the citizen, you have broken. The citizen was ready to agree that has broken - movement by a backing at a crossroads is forbidden, the penalty of 100 roubles. However the inspector has issued absolutely other infringement. Movement in a counter direction along the street with one-way traffic - a part of 3 articles 12. 16. And it already or the penalty of five thousand roubles, or deprivation of the rights on 4 - 6 months. A difference between two punishments for the same action the essential.
When last year amendments to KoAP have come into force, there was a part of 3 articles 12. 16 in the present formulation. Even before their acceptance of some legal experts the formulation " confused; movement “ in this article. It is possible to name movement everything, everything. A backing - too movement. Though concerns a category “ Maneuvers “ just as turn or a turn. It is remarkable that in rules accurately makes a reservation, in what cases movement by a backing is forbidden: at crossroads, on pedestrian crossings, in tunnels, on bridges, overpasses, platforms and under them, on railway crossings, in places with visibility of road at least in one direction less than 100 metres, in places of stops of routeing vehicles. All. However wise inspectors have started to treat a part of 3 articles 12. 16 how they would like, and, probably, and it is favourable.
It is necessary to remind, whence in general there was this article. Before coming into force of amendments to KoAP going on unilateral road to a counter direction punished as regards 4 articles 12. 15 - deprivation of the rights on 4 - 6 months. And it caused weight of disputes up to the Supreme court. Legislators have decided to facilitate a fate of the driver, after all movement on roads at us changes regularly, and those who establishes signs and draws a marking, not always keep up with such changes. Therefore movement on unilateral roads in general have allocated in separate article of KoAP. And even have entered an indulgence in the form of the penalty. Authors of amendments asserted then that meant exclusively departure on such road traditional manerom, and at all a backing. But wanted, as it is better, and it has turned out, as always.
On this theme already there are two decisions of the Supreme court. The first of them from October, 29th of last year. The court has considered a certain Ju. P.Zhilin`s complaint. That moved by the car a backing along the street with one-way traffic as you understand, in an opposite direction. The inspector has decided to punish it as regards 4 articles 12. 15 (then still new edition of KoAP did not operate). In its opinion, time the car moved in an opposite direction along the street with one-way traffic has no value how carried out this maneuver - the back or the rehouse. The world judge has deprived of Zhilin of the rights to 4 months. But in the Supreme court business have solved on - to other. The judge has referred to points 8. 12 and 8. 11 rules. As the driver did not have interdiction for movement by a backing on road with one-way traffic and thus there is no data about creation of hindrances by it to other participants of traffic, qualification as regards 4 articles 12. 15 KoAP it is unreasonable. The Supreme court has cancelled decisions of all inferior courts and has stopped manufacture on the given administrative business.
it would Seem, a victory. The Supreme court has allowed to move a backing on streets with one-way traffic. But not so all is simple. On December, 3rd last year the Supreme court has considered the complaint of the certain Osipenko which have got approximately in the same situation. The difference was only that Osipenko has passed a backing under a sign “ Entrance is forbidden “. But the Supreme court has solved its business on other - as regards 4 articles 12. 15 KoAP. In it it is a question of the actions forbidden by rules which are connected with departure on the oncoming traffic party. In this case the sign " became such direct interdiction; a brick “. And as it is specified in the court decision in this case to refer that movement by a backing is not forbidden, it is senseless, as traffic sign requirements are broken. The driver has passed under “ a brick “.
According to the logic of these two different decisions it turns out that if the driver moved along the street with one-way traffic to a sign “ entrance is forbidden “ it did not make an offence. But if it has fetched a backing “ a brick “ it has made a serious offence, and it is necessary to deprive of the rights or to fine under the maximum rate.
Logic and sense of these inconsistent decisions to us could not explain and in Department of safety of traffic. There have referred that they cannot treat laws. But as pravoprimeniteli are obliged to consider decisions of the Supreme court. For this reason the department even has directed inquiry to the Supreme court with the request to explain, how to qualify such rather frequent infringements.
Meanwhile it is necessary to remind that the basic document for the driver are Traffic regulations. He even the maintenance of KoAP the nobility is not obliged. Meanwhile such legal incidents arise from - for inconsistency of one and other document. To the usual motorist without juridical education this jungle not to understand.
FOR WHAT the Russian FederationsDEPRIVE of the RIGHTS UNDER DECISION VS