The Constitutional Court has issued a temporary prohibition on enforcing penalties under two provisions of the Administrative Offenses Act for drivers involved in a single incident who either knocked down or struck a pedestrian. This move was noted in commentary by Kommersant, a publication cited in relation to the ruling. The court’s decision pauses the simultaneous application of these two articles until the legal framework is clarified.
Under the current edition of the Administrative Offenses Code, it had been possible to detain a driver by invoking article 12.18 and then apply article 12.24, which concerns harm to health in the course of an accident, without granting an advantage to the injured party. The Constitutional Court directed the State Duma to remove the legal conflict and to develop and adopt suitable amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses. This instruction signals a pending legislative step aimed at harmonizing the system of penalties and ensuring that the sequence of charges reflects the actual nuances of each case rather than automatically stacking penalties from different articles.
The court’s intervention was grounded in concerns about how these two provisions could interact in practice. The case that prompted the proceedings involved a driver, Robert Chepurny, who struck a child in Volsk, Saratov Oblast. The driver, bound by both articles, challenged the decision in the judicial system. However, lower courts dismissed the appeal, arguing that the two offenses carried different legal natures and were not meant to be applied in a punitive cascade for a single incident. The Constitutional Court’s decision reframes this issue, underscoring the need for a consistent, fair approach to penalties that respects the distinct purposes of each offense and avoids duplicative punishment for the same reckless act.
Beyond the courtroom drama, the case touches on broader questions about road safety policy and the way penalties are structured in Russia. Legal observers note that a misalignment between article 12.18 and article 12.24 can create incentives for overlapping charges, potentially leading to harsher outcomes than may be warranted by the circumstances of a single accident. The pause in enforcing both provisions at once serves as a practical buffer while legislators rework the code to prevent such conflicts and to provide clear guidelines for prosecutors and judges. This step is especially important in ensuring proportional responses to traffic fatalities and injuries, and in maintaining public confidence that penalties are applied in a measured and principled manner.
Historically, discussions about the cost of motor insurance and related regulatory measures have also shaped the legislative landscape around driving offenses. There has been talk from the Federation Council about reducing the cost of compulsory motor liability insurance for vehicles registered in Russia. While this topic operates in a somewhat different arena, it reflects ongoing debates about balancing accountability on the roads with perceptions of fairness and affordability for ordinary drivers. The current constitutional ruling sits alongside these broader conversations, illustrating how the legal framework continually evolves to reflect changing social priorities, safety considerations, and economic realities. The immediate outcome is a temporary halt that preserves the status quo while inviting a thoughtful, codified solution from the legislative branch, one that aligns penalties with the actual harm caused and avoids duplicative sanctions for a single event.