Decision OT September 27, 2016

In case number 12-374 / 2016

Accepted Soviet District Court Tula (Tula region)

1. Judge of the Soviet District Court of Tula Strzhak E.V., examined Chuprikova complaint S.I., DD.MM.YYYY year of birth, native, registered and living at: Tula,
2. On the Resolution of the Inspector of the Office of State Road Supervision in the Tula region of the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Transport No. 004552 of August 22, 2016, on the involvement of Chuprikova S.I. To administrative responsibility under Part 1 of Article 11.33 Administrative Code,

3. Installed:

4. By the decision of the Virio Deputy Head of the Automobile Transport, Road Supervision and Control of International Automobile Transportation of the Office of the State Automobile Supervision in the Tula region of the Federal Service for Supervision in Transport No. 004552 of August 22, 2016 Chuprikov S.I. Attracted to administrative responsibility under Part 1 of Art. 11.33 Administrative Code, and he was appointed administrative punishment in the form of a fine of 3,000 rubles.
5. Disagreeing with this decision, Chuprikov S.I. He applied to the complaint, indicating that he believed imposed on him unreasonable, since he did not recognize the guilt in committing an administrative offense, but in the Administrative Offense Protocol, it was indicated that he was recognized in the ruling that he stopped in an unidentified place.
6. However, when implementing passenger traffic, the driver first in its activities is guided by the rules road. Public stop "Krasnoarmeysky Avenue" Tula is not equipped with a special markup that defines the stop public transport, like the pavilion himself, there are no signs of any signs of public transport that there is a road sign of special regulations that does not determine the borders of the public transport stopping.
7. The rules clearly did not specify the landing site and disembarking passengers from public transport. Believes that the bus under his control was in the actions zone road sign 5.16 traffic rules. Photo and video confixation of offense, testimony no testimony.
8. He asks the court to cancel the decision to attract it to administrative responsibility, ceasing the proceedings in the lack of an offense composition.
9. At the hearing, the applicant did not appear, was notified with the court properly, he did not tell the reasons for the reasons for the reasons, sent a representative to consideration.
10. At the hearing, the applicant's executive officer counselor O.G. The complaint insisted on the complaints described in the complaint of the grounds, asked to consider the complaint in the absence of the applicant notified directly by it on the order of the Court of Time, the date and place of the consideration of the complaint, as other arguments, besides outlined in the complaint of Chuprikov S.I. Does not have on the route.
11. Under such circumstances, due to the lack of obligations of a person in respect of which a decision was made in the case of an administrative offense, to attend complaints on the basis of paragraph 4 of Part 2 of Article 30.6 of the Code, the Court considers it possible to consider a complaint in the absence of the applicant, with the participation of his representative of the lawyer OG
12. Representative of the Office of State Road Supervision in the Tula Region of the Federal Service for Power of Attorney Rodionov D.V. requested to refuse to satisfy the complaint, since the decision to attract Chuprikova S.I. Administrative responsibility was legally and reasonable. For all the routes of Tula, landing and disembarking passengers are carried out only in the established stopping points.
13. According to paragraph 11 of the rules for the transportation of passengers and baggage by car and urban landmark electric transport Stopping vehicles for landing (disembarkation) of passengers is carried out in all stopping points of the regular transport route, with the exception of stopping points in which the landing (landing) of passengers is carried out at their request. The landing site and disembarkation of passengers is determined by the stasion point pointer.
14. Consequently, landing and disembarking passengers to a pointer of the stopping point will be a landing or disembarkation of passengers in an unspecified place, that is, forms the composition of the offense provided for by Part 1 of Art. 11.33 Administrative Code.
15. The court, after hearing the arguments of the participants in the process, having studied the administrative material provided, comes to the following.
16. Landing on the bus, tram or trolleybus or disembarkation from the bus, tram or trolleybus passengers in unidentified places forms the composition of the administrative offense, provided for by Part 1 of Art. 11.33 Administrative Code.
17. From the protocol No. 004552 of August 22, 2016, compiled by the Deputy Head of the Automotive Transport, Road Supervision and Control of International Automobile Transportation, Magadn in the Tula region follows that the driver of Chuprikov S.I. 05.08.2016 at 16.06 in Tula in Krasnoarmeysky Avenue, 2a, carrying out the transportation of passengers on the route number 30, made a landing of passengers to the bus of the State Registration Sign No. in violation of the provisions of Part 4 of Art. 27 "Federal Law of July 13, 2015. No. 220-FZ "On the organization of regular transportation of passengers and baggage by road transport and urban ground electric vehicles in the Russian Federation and on amending certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation", the requirements of the certificate of transportation on the route of regular transport, that is, outside the established stopping point stop " Krasnoarmeysky Avenue. "
18. According to paragraph 12.4 of the Rules of Road Russian Federationapproved by the decision of the Council of Ministers - the Government of the Russian Federation of October 23, 1993 N 1090 (as amended at the time of the administrative offense), it is forbidden to stop 15 meters from the places of stopping transport vehicles marked by markup 1.17, and in its absence - From the location of the stopping place of the route vehicles (except for stopping for landing or disembarking passengers, if it does not create interference by the movement of route vehicles).
19. The fact of committing an offense by the applicant, namely the landing of passengers by the driver Chuprikov S.I. In an unidentified place, before the sign of 5.16, confirmed, contrary to the arguments of complaints, video and photographic materials, viewed at the court hearing, Protocol No. 004552 of August 22, 2016, and the doubts of the court do not cause.
20. Actions Chuprikova S.I. Properly qualified for h. 1 Art. 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and the extinct evidence confirms his guilt into the above offense.
21. The principle of the presumption of innocence established by Article 1.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, when considering the administrative case is not violated.
22. The decision on the case was submitted within the limits of the statute of reference to administrative responsibility provided for by Art. 4.5 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, in the decision on bringing to administrative responsibility an administrative offense event is established and set out properly.
23. Violations of the procedural claims of the law that would not allow comprehensively, fully and objectively consider the case, not allowed.
24. The arguments of the complaint are not the basis for the cancellation of the decision, since they do not refute the conclusions about the guilt of Chuprikova S.I. in committing an administrative offense.
25. Under such circumstances, the grounds for the cancellation or change of the decision took place in the case are not seen.
26. Guided by Art. 30.4 - 30.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Art. 24.5 Administrative Code, Court

27. I decided:

28. Chuprikova complaint S.I. Leave without satisfaction, Resolution of the VRIO Deputy Division of Automotive, Road Supervision and Control of International Automobile Transportation of the Office of State Road Supervision in the Tula region of the Federal Service for Supervision in Transport No. 004552 of August 22, 2016, on the involvement of Chuprikova S.I. to administrative responsibility under Part 1 of Art. 11.33 COAP of the Russian Federation - no change.
29. The decision may be appealed to the Tula Regional Court through the Soviet District Court of Tula for 10 days from the date of the presentation of the Court's decision by submitting a complaint to the Soviet District Court of Tula.
30. Judge

127/2017-5896(1)

Fourteenth Arbitration
COURT OF APPEAL
ul. Batyushkova, d.12, Vologda, 160001
http: // Site

P o s t a n o v e n and e

The operative part of the decision was announced on January 31, 2017 .
The decision was made February 7, 2017 in full.

The Fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal as part of the chairmanship of Smirnova V.I., Judges of Kokuchina A.Yu. and Murakhina N.V.
when conducting the protocol, the secretary of the court session Yandoule E.A.,
with the participation of the entrepreneur Koshinyeva V.V., from the management of Mazkova E.V. by proxy of 09.01.2017,
Having considered in open court the appeal complaint of the individual entrepreneur Kosheyniyev Vitaly Vasilyevich on the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Arkhangelsk region dated November 14, 2016 in case number A05-10558 / 2016 (Judge Bystrov I.V),

s T A N O V I L:

Individual entrepreneur Koshinyev Vitaly Vasilyevich (OGRNIP 312290314300034; Place of residence: 164900, Arkhangelsk region, city Novodvinsk) appealed to the Arbitration Court of the Arkhangelsk Region, with a statement to the management of state road surveillance in the Arkhangelsk Region and the Nenets Autonomous District of the Federal Service for Transport Supervision (OGRN 1022900536010 , TIN 2901043148; location: 163060, city Arkhangelsk, Uritsky street, house 47; further - management, administrative body) on the abolition of a decision on an administrative offense dated 09/19/2016 No. 1302, which an entrepreneur was convicted of administrative offense, Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Code of Administrative Offenses (hereinafter - the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), and to which he was appointed administrative punishment in the form of a fine of 300,000 rubles.
By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Arkhangelsk region dated November 14, 2016, the decision of the management of 19.09.2016 No. 1302 is recognized illegal and changed in terms of appointment administrative punishment In the form of a fine of 300,000 rubles, the entrepreneur was prescribed a penalty in the form of a fine of 150,000 rubles.
The entrepreneur with the court decision did not agree and appealed to the appeal complaint, in which he asks the appealed judicial act to cancel, in the case to adopt a new judicial act. In support of the complaints, indicates the lack of an event and composition of the administrative offense, the responsibility for which is provided for by part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, since the fact of the regularity of transportation is not established, the carriage was carried out on request.
The Office refuted the arguments of the complaint, asks the appealed judicial act to leave unchanged, the complaint is without satisfaction.
At the hearing, the entrepreneur supported the arguments of the complaint, it believes that the testimony of witnesses have inaccuracies, the sign indicating the route No. 144 by bus, the bus was accidentally preserved, the bus was ordered by the acting person - the Limited Liability Company "Format Plus" (hereinafter referred to For the transport of an indefinite circle of persons participating in a medical examination, the track sheet was issued in order to obtain a medical officer. The representative of the Office referred to the testimony of witnesses, for the presence of a placle with the bus indicating the route of regular traffic and well-known facts that are given in the court decision.
Having heard the explanations of the representatives of the parties, examining the evidence in the case, checking the legality and reasonableness of the appealed decision, the appellate court does not find grounds for satisfying the appeal.
As follows from the case materials, 07/19/2016 at 13:00 00 min near the house number 7 on ul. Roses Shanina in the city of Arkhangelsk during the management and department of the traffic police department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Arkhangelsk joint planned control and supervisory measures was stopped by the bus 222702 (State Registration Sign M168NH / 29) under the direction of Driver Degtyareva A.I., moving along the general use route 144 "G. Arkhangelsk - Novodvinsk "and transported passengers.
On the specified vehicle there were information signs "Custom", as well as an information plate indicating the number of the route 144 " Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk. "
When checking documents, Driver Degtyarev A.I. Presented driver's license, Certificate of registration of a vehicle, a bus track of a bus dated July 19, 2016, a vehicle lease agreement without a crew of 12/15/2014 and ordering for the provision of a vehicle for transportation on request. Of path sheet From 19.07.2016 and from the lease agreement without a crew of 12/15/2014, the Office has established that the transportation of passengers on the specified bus was carried out by Koshinyev V.V., who was managed by the management of 17.08.2012 a license No. Ass-29-201336 for transportation activities Passengers with automotive vehicles equipped for transporting more than 8 people. The control establishes that Driver Degtyareva A.I. There was no map of regular transport route.
Management of 19.07.2016 and July 22, 2016 received explanations of the driver of Degtyareva A.I. In addition, July 19, 2016, the Office received the testimony of the witness Tolkacheva N.A., and on August 22, 2016 he received the testimony of a witness Tarazanova Yu.S., who were passengers of the specified bus.
According to the results of this control event, the Office saw in the behavior of the entrepreneur, signs of an administrative offense, provided for by part 4 of article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, expressed to the use of regular transport of bus passengers in the absence of a regular transport route map if the presence of such a card is mandatory.
By this fact Deputy Head of the Department of Motor Transport and Road Supervision of the Department of Veprev A.I. 01.09.2016 amounted to the entrepreneur in his presence of Minutes No. 530 on the administrative offense, provided for by part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
As indicated in this protocol, 07/19/2016 at 13 h 00 min in the area of \u200b\u200bhouse number 7 on ul. Roses Shanina in the city of Arkhangelsk Entrepreneur using a vehicle - the bus 222702 (State Registration Sign M168NN / 29) under the direction of Driver Degtyareva A.I., carried out the transportation of passengers by suburban bus route common use number 144 "G. Novodvinsk - G. Arkhangelsk "with violation of the requirements of the Federal Law of July 13, 2015 No. 220-FZ" On the organization of regular transportation of passengers and baggage by road and urban ground electric vehicles in the Russian Federation and on amending the individual legislation of the Russian Federation "(hereinafter - Law No. 220-ФЗ), as the driver of the bus Degtyareva A.I. There was no map of regular transport route.
The materials of the administrative offense case were considered 16.09.2016 by the Senior State Inspector of the Department of the Autotransport and Road Supervision of the Management of Wolish P.A. In the presence of an entrepreneur. According to the results of the consideration of an administrative offense case, a resolution of September 19, 2016 No. 1302 was adopted (the operative part of the decision was announced 16.09.2016).
In this resolution, the administrative body concluded that the event of an administrative offense was presented, the responsibility for which is provided for by part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, as well as to the conclusion about the presence of an entrepreneur's fault in the commission of this offense. The conclusions of the administrative body set out in the resolution served as the basis for attracting an entrepreneur to administrative responsibility, provided for by part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, and the appointment of administrative penalties in the form of a fine of 300,000 rubles.
The entrepreneur with the specified decree did not agree and appealed to the arbitration court with a statement.
The court of first decree of the management of 19.09.2016 No. 1302 was considered illegal and changed in terms of the appointment of administrative punishment in the form of a fine of 300,000 rubles, the entrepreneur was punished with a fine of 150,000 rubles.
The appellate board considers this judicial act not subject to cancellation on the following grounds.
By virtue of part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, use for the implementation of regular transport of bus passengers, tram or trolleybus in the absence of a regular transport route card if the presence of such a card is mandatory, entails the imposition of an administrative fine on legal entities in the amount of three hundred thousand rubles.
For administrative offenses, provided for in this article, persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without the formation of a legal entity are administrative responsibility as legal entities.
According to clause 20 of Part 1 of Article 3 of Law No. 220-FZ Regular Transport Route Map - a document containing information about the route of regular traffic and a vehicle that is allowed to be used for transportation on this route.
In accordance with Part 3 of Article 35 of Law No. 220-ФЗ, the driver of the vehicle used to implement regular traffic is obliged to have with him and provide for verification officials of the state transport control authority a map of regular transport route.
By virtue of article 40 of this Law, administrative responsibility under Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for the lack of routes cards is introduced from July 15, 2016.
From part 3 of Article 17 of the Law No. 220-FZ, it follows that the map of the municipal route of regular transport, the inter-municipal route of regular traffic, the adjacent interregional route of regular traffic is issued for each vehicle used for regular traffic on the relevant route.
According to Part 1 of Article 35 of Law No. 220-ФЗ, the driver of the vehicle used to implement regular traffic is obliged to have with him and provide for verification officials of the state transport control authority a map of regular transport route.
According to the materials of the case, 07/19/2016 at 13 o'clock in the area of \u200b\u200bHouse No. 7 on the street. Roses Shanina in Arkhangelsk Entrepreneur using a vehicle - Bus 222702 (State Registration Sign M168NN / 29) under the direction of Driver Degtyarev A.I., carried out the transportation of passengers on the suburban bus route of public use No. 144 " Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk "with violation of the requirements of Law No. 220-FZ, since the driver of the bus Degtyareva A.I. There was no map of regular transport route.
This offense is confirmed by a combination of evidence obtained by the administrative authority in compliance with the requirements of the legislation, namely: the act of planned (raid) inspection dated July 19, 2016 No. 185, attached to the photos of the bus, photographs of documents presented by the driver Degtyarev A.I. (travel sheet, bus dated July 19, 2016, vehicle rental contract without a crew of 12/15/2014, certificate of registration of a vehicle), testimony of witnesses Tolkacheva N.A. and Tarazanova Yu.S., who followed in the specified bus as passengers.
Applied to the act of planned (raid) inspection dated 19.07.2016 No. 185 photographs confirmed by the presence of passengers in the bus cabin, on the right side of the brunt body, along the movement of the vehicle, there is a pointer to the route of regular passenger traffic No. 144 Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk. From recorded management 07/19/2016 at 13 o'clock. At the place of stop of the bus testimony of a witness Tolkacheva N.A. It follows that July 19, 2016 at 12 o'clock. 50 min. She put a landing on the bus 222702 (State Registration Sign M168NN / 29) on ul. Roses Shanina in Arkhangelsk, a sign with a number of route number 144 hung on the bus. According to the testimony Tolkacheva N.A. For the passage, she has not paid yet, she was going to pay 75 rubles for the passage of 75 rubles in Novodvinsk, the bus to the bus was not carried out, with anyone in the cabin is not familiar. From the newly received testimony of the witness Tarazanova Yu.S. It follows that 07/19/2016 at about 12 o'clock 50 minutes, it was landing on the bus 222702 (State Registration Sign M168NN / 29) at the Sea River Station in Arkhangelsk. On the bus was a sign with a number of the route 144 "G. Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk. " When landing on the bus, she paid the bus driver for the passage of 75 rubles. Whether the driver betrayed the driver, she does not remember. The rest of the passengers when landing on the bus also paid fare to Novodvinsk in the amount of 75 rubles. According to the testimony of Tarazanova Yu.S. She did not order a specified bus anywhere, carried out a landing into it as a regular "minibus", which carries out transportation on route No. 144 " Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk. " According to Tarazanova Yu.S., the chartering contract or the order-outfit did not conclude with her, she does not know other passengers in the cabin. After the measures taken to control the management staff and traffic police officers, the bus continued on route No. 144.
There is reason to believe that the testimony of witnesses is unreliable or unacceptable evidence, taking into account the applicant's arguments that they could not know the exact number and the brand of the vehicle, the court of appeal does not have.
Without challenging the fact of the transportation of passengers on the specified bus, the applicant claimed that she carried out the transportation of passengers on request on the basis of an order to provide a vehicle for the transport of passengers of an indefinite circle of persons from 19.07.2016, concluded with the charterer Tarakanov Vasily Gennadyevich, representative of LLC Plus " In the appeal, her submitter also referred to the presence of the specified order, for the presence of "customized" tablets, placed on the bus, to explain the driver of Degtyareva A.I., and also on the testimony of Taraakanova V.G., responded at the applicant's petition 09/16/2016.
The court of first instance lawfully considered the applicant's arguments with inconclusive.
Article 784 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) provides that the carriage of goods, passengers and baggage is carried out on the basis of a transport contract. General conditions of transportation are determined by transport charters and codes, other laws and the rules published in accordance with them. The conditions for the carriage of goods, passengers and baggage with certain types of transport, as well as the responsibility of the parties on this transportation are determined by the Agreement of the Parties, if the Rules' Codex, Transport Charters and Codes, other laws and the rules published in accordance with them are otherwise established.
By virtue of Article 787 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation under the charter agreement (charter), one party (freighter) undertakes to provide another party (charterer) for a fee for a fee or more of the capacity of one or more vehicles for one or more flights for the carriage of goods, passengers and baggage. The procedure for entering into an agreement of the chartering, as well as the form of this Agreement is established by transport charters and codes.
Part 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law of 08.11.2007 No. 259-FZ "Charter of the Automobile and Urban Ground Electric Transport" (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 259-FZ) also stipulated that the transportation of passengers and baggage on request is carried out by the vehicle provided on the basis of the contract chartering enclosed in writing.
According to parts 2 and 3 of Article 27 of the Law No. 259-FZ, the chartering contract specified in part 1 of the title article should include: 1) information about the freighter and charterer; 2) the type of vehicle provided (if necessary - the number of vehicles); 3) route and vehicle feed location; 4) a certain or indefinite circle of persons, for the transport of which the vehicle is provided; 5) the timing of transportation; 6) the size of the fee for using the vehicle; 7) The procedure for admission of passengers for landing into the vehicle established taking into account the requirements provided for by the transportation rules of passengers (if the vehicle is provided for the transport of a certain circle of persons).
The chartering agreement specified in paragraph 1 of the article mentioned may include other items that are not specified in paragraph 2 of this article. In the absence of the need to implement the systematic transportation of passengers and baggage by order, the chartering contract specified in part 1 of the article mentioned is the form of an order to provide a vehicle for the transport of passengers and baggage. Details and the order of filling such an order are established by the rules of transportation of passengers (part 4 of Article 27 of Law No. 259-FZ).
By virtue of paragraph 89 of the rules for the transportation of passengers and baggage by road transport and urban ground electric transport approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 14.02.2009 No. 112 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation No. 112), the transportation of passengers and baggage on request is carried out by the vehicle provided on the basis of the contract charters whose conditions are determined by the Agreement of the Parties in accordance with Article 27 of Law No. 259-FZ.
The chartering contract may provide for the use of vehicles for the transport of a certain circle of persons or an indefinite circle of persons (paragraph 90 of Rules No. 112).
The chartering agreement providing for the use of vehicles to transport a certain circle of persons establishes the procedure for admitting these persons to landing into a vehicle in accordance with paragraph 92 of these Rules (paragraph 91 of Rules No. 112).
By virtue of paragraph 92 of the Transportation Rules No. 112, the landing of persons defined by the chartering contract, to the vehicle provided for customer transportation of passengers and baggage, is carried out upon presentation of the charter of documents (official certificate, sightseeing trips, etc.), certifying their right to travel In this vehicle, and (or) in accordance with the list of passengers presented by the charterer charterer.
Paragraph 94 of Rules No. 112, it was established that the chartering agreement or its copy should be from the driver from the beginning until the end of the transportation of passengers and baggage on request and make sure that the officials of the federal executive bodies authorized to control the presence of the drivers Such documents. At the same time, by virtue of paragraph 95 of the specified rules, the vehicle provided for the transport of passengers and baggage on request must be decorated with signs with the inscription "Custom" placed: above the windshield of the vehicle and (or) at the top windshield; on the right side of the body in the course of the vehicle; On the rear window of the vehicle. Over the headless glass and (or) on the right side of the body, in the course of the vehicle, a brief name of the charterer is indicated (paragraph 97 of Rules No. 112).
The appellate board supports the conclusion of the applied decision that in this case the entrepreneur under the guise of transportation of an indefinite circle of persons on request actually carried out regular transportation of passengers and baggage on a specific route of the fee.
The testimony of witnesses Tolkacheva N.A. and Tarazanova Yu.S. Refute the accuracy of the order, as well as the testimony of the witness Tarakanova V.G. and explanations of the driver of Degtyareva A.I.
Under such circumstances, the court came to the right conclusion that the administrative body was proven by the fact of the implementation of Kosheyniaev V.V. 07/19/2016 Passengers transportation by bus on the suburban bus route of public use No. 144 "G. Novodvinsk - Arkhangelsk. " By carrying out such transportation, the applicant had to have a map of regular transport route. Since the transportation of passengers on the specified route, the applicant 07/19/2016 carried out with the use of the bus and did not have a regular transport route card, the Office came to a reasonable conclusion about the presence of an administrative offense event in this case, provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
Part 1 of Article 1.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation provides that the person is subject to administrative responsibility only for the administrative offenses in respect of which its fault is established. At the same time, the person involved in administrative responsibility is not obliged to prove its innocence (part 3 of Article 1.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).
According to Article 2.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, an administrative offense is recognized as an unlawful, guilty effect (inaction) of a physical or legal person, for which the COAP of the Russian Federation or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses establishes administrative responsibility.
Wines of an individual entrepreneur as individual In the form of intent or negligence, it must be established and proved by the administrative authority in accordance with Article 2.2 of the Code of Administrative Code, which it is envisaged that the administrative offense is recognized as perfect intentionally, if the person who committed it, conscious of the unlawful nature of his action (inaction), foresaw his harmful effects and The occurrence of such consequences or consciously allowed them or relate to them indifferently (part 1). The administrative offense is recognized as perfect by negligence, if the person who committed it, foreseen the possibility of the harmful consequences of his action (inaction), but without sufficient reason, the foundations arrogantly expedited to prevent such consequences or did not foresee the possibility of the onset of such consequences, although it was necessary and could Anticipate (part 2).
Exploring the question of the guilt of the entrepreneur, the court of appeal comes to the conclusion about the creation that the entrepreneur created the appearance of the legitimacy of transportation carried out by formal document management.
Thus, the Court of Appeal is evidenced by the presence of an administrative offense in the behavior of an entrepreneur and informed its attraction to administrative responsibility under Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Code.
Established by the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, the procedure for the administrative authority is not broken by the administrative authority.
The statute of limitations to administrative responsibility established by Article 4.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, the administrative authority is also observed.
The court of appeal taking into account the established actual circumstances of the offense and the extent of its public danger, did not see the actors of the entrepreneurial of the insignificance of the administrative offense and grounds for the application of the provisions of Article 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
The responsibility measure of the administrative authority is determined within the sanction, provided for by part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
In this case, the applicant is responsible as a legal entity; An administrative penalty in accordance with Part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is determined in the amount of three hundred thousand rubles; The sanctions of this provision does not provide for the possibility of applying alternative punishment (administrative warning).
At the same time, the judicial board believes that the court of first instance is justified in the order of part 3 of Article 211 of the APC RF, recognized by the Company's challenged by the Company in the case of an administrative offense illegal in terms of the imposition of a fine in the amount exceeding 150,000 rubles, based on the following.
According to Part 3 of Article 4.1, the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in the appointment of administrative punishment to the legal entity takes into account the nature of the administrative offense committed by them, the property and financial position of the legal entity, circumstances mitigating administrative responsibility, and circumstances aggravating administrative responsibility.
In accordance with Part 4 of Article 3 of the APC RF, legal proceedings in arbitration courts are carried out in accordance with federal laws acting during the resolution of the dispute and consideration of the case, committing a separate procedural action or execution of a judicial act.
Similar provisions are enshrined in part 3 of article 1.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, according to which the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense are carried out on the basis of the law acting during production at the specified case.
Federal Law of December 31, 2014 No. 515-FZ in Article 4.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, changes were made, in accordance with which this norm is supplemented, including parts 3.2 and 3.3 of the following content:
- in the presence of exceptional circumstances related to the nature of the committed administrative offense and its consequences, the property and financial position of the legal entity involved in the administrative responsibility of the legal entity, the judge, the authority, which are considering cases of administrative offenses or complaints, protests on decisions and (or) decisions on administrative offenses, may impose a sentence in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of the less minimum amount of the administrative fine, provided for by the relevant article or part of the article II Code of Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, in the event that the minimum amount of an administrative fine for legal entities is at least one hundred thousand rubles;
- when appointing administrative punishment in accordance with part 3.2 of the title article, the amount of an administrative fine cannot be less than half of the minimum amount of the administrative fine, provided for for legal entities with the relevant article or part of the article section II Code of Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
Guided by these principles, as well as taking into account the criteria as justice and the proportionality of administrative punishment, the absence of both circumstances aggravating administrative responsibility and circumstances mitigating administrative responsibility, carried out by the entrepreneur socially significant activities for the transport of passengers by road, as well as the fact The offense provided for by part 4 of Article 11.33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation was admitted to the applicant for the first time, the court of first instance legally reduced the size of the administrative fine to the minimum possible offense for the above.
Thus, the disputed ruling of 19.09.2016 No. 1302 is legally recognized by illegal and change in the part of the sentences.
The case is considered by the court of first instance full and comprehensively, the norms of material and procedural law are not violated, the conclusions of the court correspond to the evidence in the case. There are no grounds for cancellation of the court decision, the appeal is not subject to satisfaction.
Guided by Articles 269, 271 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal

p o s t a n o v and l:

Decision of the Arbitration Court of the Arkhangelsk Region dated November 14, 2016 in case No. A05-10558 / 2016, to leave unchanged, the appeal of the individual entrepreneur Kosheyniyev Vitaly Vasilyevich - without satisfaction.
The ruling can be appealed to the Arbitration Court of the North-West District within a period not exceeding two months from the date of its adoption.