The following explains the issue at hand. Under the third portion of Article 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, a person placed under administrative responsibility is not required to prove innocence. Yet the explanatory notes to this article carve out exceptions. In the automotive sector, drivers cited for offenses defined in Chapter 12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses must demonstrate their innocence when violations are captured by automatic photo and video recording systems.
Yaroslav Nilov, who led the State Duma Committee on Labour, Social Policy and Veterans Affairs, pointed out that the legitimacy of using video cameras to detect certain administrative violations is questionable. Consequently, a group of deputies has proposed limiting the number of rolling articles in the Code of Administrative Offenses, as noted in the article’s footnotes.
The proposal would expand the scope of the presumption of innocence beyond six articles of Chapter 12. In practical terms, it would require directors to prove their innocence in several scenarios:
- exceeding the speed limit
- violation of rules governing vehicle placement on the road
- failure to comply with signs and road markings
- nonpayment of toll roads
and for heavy or oversized vehicles, the list also includes compliance with moving rules for such vehicles and a default under certain regulations.
- for violations related to the operation of heavy or large vehicles
- for a default under applicable regulations
As in other cases, the authorities deciding penalties would bear the burden of proving guilt against the driver, according to a deputy’s letter that has been circulated in automotive press. The publication Za Rulem, a long-standing industry outlet, has shared this document.
In some instances, violations may be flagged on the basis of unclear photographs where the driver’s belt or clothing blends with the surrounding garment, or where another person is clearly behind the wheel. In such situations, the driver is expected to prove the obvious details, which many observers consider unfair.
Experts argue that adopting this bill would lead to a more balanced weighing of interests for all road users and would improve the effectiveness of using photo and video enforcement tools to prevent and detect traffic violations. The aim is to ensure accuracy in the application of administrative penalties while maintaining fair processes across road safety enforcement.