A motorist paid a fine but there was an error in the data entered for the payment. The money did not reach the Treasury, and as a result a case was filed against the driver for non-payment. This nuance sparked questions about whether the offender’s actions were truly delinquent and whether the payment attempt should be treated as valid under the law.
In response, the Magistrate’s Court issued a sentence under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Code of Administrative Violations. The sanction took the form of a double fine, reflecting the court’s effort to address the initial misstep while ensuring accountability for the perceived lapse in payment.
After a lengthy legal process, the matter progressed to the Supreme Court. The court confirmed that the payment had not been completed within the legally prescribed timeframe. However, it also observed that there were compelling reasons to review and potentially cancel the prior decisions concerning the offender due to the specific circumstances surrounding the payment error.
The Code of Administrative Offenses, specifically Article 2.9, permits authorities to absolve a citizen from liability for an administrative offense that is deemed insignificant. In such cases, what remains is a formal or oral admonition rather than a formal penalty. This provision allows for a degree of judicial mercy when the conduct does not rise to a meaningful violation of the law or the public interest.
In the present case, the offender had indeed paid the fine and had produced a receipt containing the payment’s purpose, the order number, and the payer’s passport details. Yet an error in the transfer resulted in the funds being credited to the wrong recipient. These facts indicate that while the actions could be interpreted as having signs of an offense, they were not egregious or consequential enough to warrant harsh penalties. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the overall situation fell within the realm of insignificance.
As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the lower courts and dismissed the case on the grounds of insignificance. The decision underscores the importance of carefully distinguishing between technical noncompliance and substantive wrongdoing, especially when the payment was made and traceable, but misdirected due to an administrative error.
Source: Rossiya Gazeta. Photo: pixnio. com