The Constitutional Court is reviewing how Article 12.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses handles penalties for drivers under the influence of substances. The current rules do not set a clear threshold for drug concentrations in a driver’s blood, which means that even small amounts could lead to license suspension. Advocates from the Salekhard City Court say this approach is unfair and unconstitutional, and they have formally asked the Constitutional Court to examine the issue.
The matter began with the case of Vasily Shevelev from Salekhard. He lost his license after taking gabapentin and received a fine of 30,000 rubles. Notably, gabapentin is not classified as a narcotic or potent substance, and there is no specified maximum allowable level for this drug in the bloodstream under current law.
Representatives from Salekhard City Court argue that judicial practice has trended toward a broad interpretation of the law and an increasing number of cases falling under Article 12.8. They describe the current framework as unfair and unconstitutional and call for legislative reform.
Experts and defense attorneys say the problem runs deeper than a single case. They point out that the practice often labels a driver as intoxicated solely based on the presence of drugs in the system. This can include antidepressants such as phenazepam, amitriptyline, or other medications, as well as common over‑the‑counter remedies like fever reducers or cold medicines that may be found in pharmacies. In practice, ordinary medicines and supplements can complicate driving assessments and punishment under the article.
There is now an opportunity for the Constitutional Court to urge the State Duma to make needed adjustments to the law and, in the interim, to consider restrictions on punishing individuals for drug use while driving. The overall aim is to ensure that penalties proportional to actual impairment are applied and that legal standards reflect current medical understanding and safety concerns.
Lawyers and scholars emphasize that the issue touches on fundamental questions of due process and proportionality. They argue that a legal framework should distinguish between the mere presence of a drug in the blood and demonstrable impairment that affects driving ability. The debate also highlights the importance of clear medical guidelines, reliable testing thresholds, and transparent procedures that protect drivers who may be taking legitimate medications under medical supervision. This case raises broader questions about how traffic offenses are defined and prosecuted when medical treatments intersect with daily life on the road.
In the coming months, observers will watch for how the Constitutional Court addresses these concerns and whether legislative amendments will align penalties with contemporary medical knowledge and safety standards. The outcome could influence not only how similar offenses are treated in Russia but also how drivers’ rights are balanced with public safety objectives in traffic law enforcement. The central tension remains clear: the need to prevent dangerous driving while safeguarding the rights of individuals who are legitimately using prescribed medications. The court’s decision could set a precedent for more nuanced interpretations of Article 12.8 and clarify the boundaries between drug presence and actual driving impairment. This remains a developing story with significant implications for legal practice and everyday road safety.