To avoid ambiguous interpretation of the law and prevent errors in cases of certain administrative offenses related to corruption VSSU prepared a letter to the head of appellate courts.
VSSU defined elements of the administrative offense under Article h. 1 tbsp. 172-6 CAO regarding the violation of financial control, which was to late submission without valid reasons declaration by a person authorized to perform state functions or local government.
It also pointed out that the design features of this offense are filing late without good reason.
Under the valid reasons people should understand the impossibility of timely submit a declaration due to illness, people stay on treatment, due to natural disasters (floods, fires, earthquakes), technical failures official website of the National Agency for Prevention of Corruption, obtaining information necessary Fertilizer declaration stay (custody) detention and so on.
In cases of an administrative offense under part 2 of article 172-7 CAO (of actions or decisions in a real conflict of interest), the courts should take into account the need for facts, the determination of which should be reflected in the protocol on administrative offense and a court order:
1) if the offender fact private interest, which should be clearly articulated (articulated) and defined;
2) the fact of conflict between private interests and official or representative authority to indicate what it is this contradiction finds its expression or impact on the decision;
3) if the decision authority;
4) the fact of the real impact of conflict between private and official representative or interest in objectivity or impartiality of the decision.
The Court explained that the finding of a real conflict of interest is not enough to ascertain the existence of private interests that potentially could affect the objectivity or impartiality of decisions but should immediately establish that, firstly, the private interest is available, and secondly, it contradicts the official or representative powers, and thirdly, this conflict can not affect, and really affect the objectivity or impartiality of decisions or take actions.
VSSU also noted that administrative penalties for corruption offenses may be imposed within three months from the date of detection, but no later than two years from its commission (ch. 3, Art. 38 CAO).
Continuation of the current terms of imposing administrative sanctions provided by law, so if they end the proceedings closed.
Note legislator in para. 7, Art. 247 CAO “at the time of the proceedings” means that the proceedings of an administrative offense shall be closed if the beginning of the proceedings ended terms established by art. 38 CAO. And the proceedings of an administrative offense and its end is not burdened with the terms specified century. 38 CAO, and under Art. 277 Administrative Code, which guarantees a comprehensive, objective and complete clarification of all circumstances relevant to solving the case.
If at the time the trial ended terms of bringing a person to administrative responsibility, the court in case of denial of a person guilty or presence in its actions of the administrative offense must examine all the circumstances of the case, to establish whether the offense characteristics and composition of administrative corruption offense, or the person belongs to the subjects of corruption offenses or she is guilty of committing it, and only then close the proceedings.