The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has reinforced a clear principle: when a company employee is driving at the moment of a traffic violation and the vehicle is owned by a legal entity, the full assignment of fault to the employee is not legally inevitable. This stance clarifies the boundaries between individual responsibility and corporate accountability in road safety matters, emphasizing that ownership and day-to-day control are distinct legal concepts even when they coincide on a single trip.
In his reminder to the legal community, the court stressed that driving a vehicle under an employment contract with the owner or holder of the vehicle, and thus under the owner’s direct supervision, does not automatically transfer the vehicle’s ownership rights to the driver. This distinction remains essential for evaluating liability within administrative and civil procedures, ensuring that ownership status does not evaporate simply because an employee was behind the wheel during a violation.
When a traffic rule infraction occurs, the court indicates that the employer may be deemed to have failed to maintain proper control over the employee’s conduct. Consequently, the employer may bear responsibility within the framework of legal relationships with the state, even if the driver acted in the capacity of an employee rather than as the vehicle’s owner. This approach underscores the need for robust internal controls, clear delegation of authority, and well-defined policies governing vehicle use within organizations.
According to the court, the use of a vehicle by an employee is effectively equivalent to the use of a vehicle by the employer in regulatory terms. Part 2 of Article 2.6.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is interpreted in a way that aligns with the Constitution, and no alternative interpretation is permitted in law enforcement practice. This resolution closes disputes about the scope of employer responsibility and clarifies how administrative offenses involving company cars should be processed in relation to those who drive them on company business.
Requires 7,000 tires in popular sizes
The public order system relies on essential resources and timely maintenance, without which services cannot function and communities would face gaps in care and safety. The conversation around tire supply, maintenance, and readiness for vehicle fleets touches on broader themes of resilience, accessibility, and emergency readiness for the population.
In collaboration with the Popular Front, initiatives have emerged to raise funds intended for tire procurement for cars used by the People’s Police and other operational services in the LPR and DPR regions. These efforts also cover ambulances, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, and vehicles delivering humanitarian aid, including those transporting relief supplies to residents and moving army equipment. Contributions can be made through a dedicated collection page that coordinates these logistical needs and supports rapid response capabilities when lives are at stake.
Civic participation in such campaigns reflects a collective recognition that vehicle readiness translates into tangible safety outcomes for communities and frontline responders alike. The tire drive is framed as a practical step toward ensuring mobility, reliability, and faster response times during emergencies, while also highlighting the broader responsibilities of institutions and citizens in maintaining essential public services.
Citation: Russian newspaper