New! Exemption from the first administrative fine in the form of a warning

Conditions under which, by virtue of Art. 4.1.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it is possible to replace a fine with a warning

A long time ago, in July 2020, amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation came into force, allowing law enforcement officers to replace punishment in the form of a fine with a warning, subject to certain conditions, for certain categories of offenders. The innovations concern Article 4.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

A warning is the least significant penalty contained in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. This punishment is expressed in written censure of the offender, i.e. he does not suffer any material losses.

There are a total of 5 conditions for changing the punishment, and all of them must be met in total.

We present them below.

1. The offense must be committed for the first time.
2. Violations must be detected during inspection activities carried out by government agencies.
3. The involved legal entity must be a small (or medium) business.
4. The sanction of the article (under which the culprit is punished) should not contain a penalty in the form of a warning.
5. The offense should not cause harm to the life (health) of people, property, the environment, cultural sites, state security, and should not create a threat to an emergency situation.

Important! The rule on the possibility of replacing a fine with a warning also applies to employees of organizations - small and medium-sized businesses that have committed offenses (subject to the conditions stated above).

Reason 1. The statute of limitations for the fine has expired

So, the company received an inspection report and an order. Analyze these documents and evaluate which of the offenses identified by the labor inspector may serve as the basis for administrative liability. You cannot be held accountable for violations for which the statute of limitations has expired. If the GIT inspector includes such a violation in the protocol, inform him about it. The inspector must make a decision to terminate proceedings in the case of an administrative offense (clause 6, part 1, article 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The employer has the right to get acquainted with all the materials of the case, give explanations, present evidence, file petitions and challenges and use the legal assistance of a defense lawyer (Article 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). These rights can be used when, based on the results of an inspection, the labor inspector draws up a protocol on an administrative offense (Article 28.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Judicial practice on the application of the provisions of Art. 4.1.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

Those who are faced with the question of the possibility of replacing a fine with a warning often have a question about how willing the courts or officials are to take such a measure, even if all the grounds for this are met.

The editors of Zakoved.ru studied more than 500 decisions of judges of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts in order to answer it. The results of the generalization of judicial practice were not comforting for those held accountable.

There are very few positive decisions, less than 5% of the total number of cases studied. For example, by the decision of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated 03/09/2017 in case No. 72-275/2017, the punishment was changed to a warning (Article 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). Another example is the resolution of the Altai Regional Court dated 03/02/2017 in case No. 4A-119/2017, which decided under Art. 14.16 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation was changed from a fine to a warning.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, judges are extremely reluctant to change the punishment, citing the severity of the violation and other circumstances that do not allow a change.

***

Thus, the possibility of changing the punishment from a fine to a warning exists, but in practice it is used extremely rarely, and only if the public danger of the violation committed is insignificant. In these cases, it is more appropriate to try to petition for dismissal of the case due to the insignificance of the violation committed (Article 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Reason 2. There are circumstances mitigating administrative liability

Art. 112 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation contains a list of mitigating circumstances that allow one to apply for a reduction in sanctions several times. When submitting your request, be sure to indicate mitigating circumstances. Don’t forget to indicate one of the types when creating a sample petition to the tax office to reduce the fine.

We suggest you familiarize yourself with: Moral damage to an employee, accounting records

All circumstances that may reduce the established punishment are divided into 4 groups:

• are common;
• for individual entrepreneurs;
• for legal entities;
• for individuals.

Let's present a list of mitigating circumstances in the form of a table.

The inspector must find out the circumstances mitigating and aggravating administrative liability (Article 26.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). With the help of a petition, the employer himself can show the labor inspector that he has extenuating circumstances (diagram below).

The inspector will reduce liability when the offender (Article 4.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation): – repented of committing an offense; – voluntarily stopped committing illegal actions; – assisted the authorized body in establishing the circumstances in the case of an administrative violation; – prevented the harmful consequences of the offense;

The list of circumstances provided for by the Code is not exhaustive. The inspector has the right to recognize other mitigating circumstances. For example, if the employer committed an administrative offense for the first time. The inspector indicates the taken into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the decision on sentencing.

How to determine the statute of limitations for bringing administrative liability

Find out what administrative offense is being charged - with a specific date of commission or ongoing.
The specific date of an administrative offense is the day when the employer must fulfill a certain obligation under the labor legislation of the Russian Federation, but did not do so. For example, the date when an illegal order was issued or wages were not paid. If a year has passed from this day, the inspector does not have the right to bring the employer to administrative liability (Article 4.5, paragraph 6, part 1, article 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). Continuing offenses include those the moment of commission of which is not related to the date, time or event specified in the law. This is a long-term, continuous failure to fulfill the obligations provided for by law. For example, the employer did not approve the internal labor regulations or did not keep a book recording the movement of work books and inserts in them. In this case, the one-year statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility is calculated from the day when the inspector established the offense.

Petition to reduce the fine for an administrative offense

A significant part of administrative violations are punishable by a fine. This depends on how serious the offense was, as well as many other factors.

This article will look at how an administrative fine is replaced with a warning - a petition, a sample of the corresponding application, as well as for what offenses this procedure is possible.

1. Legal regulation
   • Circumstances in which a fine is replaced with a warning • Circumstances in which a replacement of a fine is not provided
2. Petition to replace penalties with a warning • Application form
3. Arbitrage practice

In 2020, Article 4.1.1 was added to the Administrative Code. A number of rules were introduced into it regarding the procedure for imposing penalties for administrative offenses. According to these rules, in certain cases an administrative fine can be replaced with a warning.

The essence of these changes is that, under certain circumstances, the offender avoids material costs and, instead of a fine, bears the lightest penalty for his act. This measure is expressed only in censure of the person who violated the law, which is issued in writing.

A resolution was also passed according to which for small businesses in 2020 it is also possible to replace a fine with a warning.

The legislation does not stipulate a specific period during which all losses must be compensated, however, in some cases, these terms are set by the court, at the request of the injured party, or at the discretion of the judge.

According to the law, the following persons may apply for an exemption from paying a fine and replacing it with a warning under certain circumstances:

• individual entrepreneurs;
• legal entities that can be classified as small or medium-sized enterprises;
• employees of enterprises classified as small or medium-sized businesses.

Administrative law provides for the replacement of a fine with a written reprimand for company managers, who in this case will be considered as employees of these enterprises.

Circumstances in which a fine is replaced by a warning

Replacement of a fine imposed as a measure of suppression of administrative offenses can only be carried out under certain circumstances.

1. This violation was committed by the person for the first time.

2. The fact of violation was established during relevant inspections by state authorities.

3. A person accused of an administrative offense may be classified as the owner of a small or medium-sized business.

5. When committing an administrative violation, no serious or irreparable damage was caused.

Changing the punishment for an administrative offense is possible only in cases where the above conditions were met not individually, but in aggregate, that is, changing the sanction is impossible if not all of the listed conditions are met.

Circumstances in which replacement of the fine is not provided

There are a number of administrative offenses where it is impossible to replace an administrative fine with a warning.

If the offender caused serious damage to the injured person, then a warning cannot be substituted for a fine. The following cases may include serious damage:

• harm to the life of an individual or group of individuals;
• damage to the health of one or more people;
• harm to the environment;
• damage to cultural objects, such as monuments or historical buildings;
• damage to state property;
• creation of an emergency situation, including the threat of terrorism;
• abuses in the commodity market, including price manipulation;
• violation of competition rules;
• insubordination to a government official in the performance of his official duties;
• failure to comply with a court order within the prescribed period;
• violations provided for by antimonopoly laws;
• failure to submit required information and documents to executive authorities;
• forgery of stamps, seals, documents;
• violations of immigration laws;
• presentation of illegal gratifications;
• illegal recruitment;
• violations in the field of education.

The cases listed above most often relate to those offenses when compensation for losses, payment of compensation, or moral damage is provided for, that is, a warning of punishment cannot be considered legitimate.

According to the Administrative Code, in order to change the penalty, a petition to replace the fine with a warning is not required. This means that the court can determine the possibility of this replacement, regardless of whether such an application was filed.

We invite you to read: Statement on procedural succession

Along with this, according to the law, a person accused of an offense can independently collect evidence and confirmation that will contribute to the abolition of penalties.

This is explained by the fact that during administrative proceedings, the accused person has the right to the following actions:

• collection and presentation of evidence;
• familiarization with the case materials;
• providing written explanations.

Consequently, filing an application with a request to replace penalties with a warning is the right of the person against whom an administrative case has been initiated.

Application form

Since there is no clear form for writing such a petition, it must meet only one condition - to be submitted in writing. The application may include the following information:

• full name of the authority to which the application is submitted;
• name of the legal entity or passport details of the applicant;
• address of the legal entity or official registration of the applicant, other contact information, for example, telephone numbers or email address;
• data on the case indicating the articles;
• grounds for replacing penalties;
• list of documents attached to the application.

What violations can be replaced by warnings instead of a fine?

We will not compile a complete list, but we will indicate some violations that could be suitable for replacement:

1. Failure to issue pay slips to employees entails the imposition of an administrative fine, which may be replaced by a warning;
2. Failure to comply with requirements for special assessment of working conditions. According to the Explanations of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated January 16, 2019, the employer will first be sent a warning about the inadmissibility of the employer violating labor protection requirements. The warning will indicate the time frame for correcting the violations;
3. In case of non-payment of wages on time, if these actions do not constitute a criminal offense, they may result in a warning;
4. For violation of established rules for the sale of certain types of goods, a warning may be provided rather than a fine;
5. For the provision of hotel services without assigning a certain category, a warning may be provided rather than a fine;
6. For violation of the deadlines for submitting a tax return to the tax authority, officials may receive a warning rather than a fine;
7. Violation of deadlines for submitting reports on cash flows on accounts in banks outside the Russian Federation may result in a warning rather than a fine.

So, if your company or individual entrepreneur has received an administrative fine and is a small or medium-sized business, try to check whether it can be replaced with a warning and, if possible, contact the inspection body that issued the fine with this question.

We provide accounting services to small and medium-sized businesses, which makes it possible to save on costs and also be confident in the quality of accounting. Leave a request on the website, or find out the cost by phone!

Author: Shiryaeva Natalya

Replacing an administrative fine with a warning: review of judicial practice

A complete list of conditions for replacing a fine with a warning

The violation must simultaneously satisfy seven conditions:

• did not cause or could not cause harm to people, nature, cultural heritage sites, or state security;
• committed by a small or medium-sized business entity;
• committed for the first time;
• identified as a result of state or municipal control;
• not mentioned in Part 2 of Art. 4.1.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation;
• did not create a threat of emergency;
• did not result in property damage.

Let's take a closer look at the first four conditions.

The violation did not and could not cause harm

The most difficult thing is to justify that the violation did not pose a threat to people, nature, the state or cultural heritage sites.

Courts a priori consider violations of the requirements to be potentially dangerous:

• for employees to undergo medical examinations and instructions on labor protection (Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic);
• construction and use of building materials or products (12th AAS, 13th AAS);
• availability of a license to carry out pharmaceutical activities (3rd AAS);
• storage of medicines (12th AAS);
• transportation, driving or slaughter of animals or procurement, processing, storage or sale of animal products (19th AAS​​​​​​​);
• targeted use of land (21st AAS​​​​​​​);
• pricing procedures in the housing and communal services sector (14th AAS​​​​​​​);
• subsoil use (4th AAS, 8th AAS);
• foreign exchange transactions (2nd AAS, 3rd AAS​​​​​​​);
• use of migrant labor (Tver Regional Court, Perm Regional Court). Let us note that there is also a positive practice when a fine was replaced with a warning (13th AAS);
• the procedure for the sale of products subject to confirmation of conformity (2nd AAS​​​​​​​).

The courts also consider violations of industrial safety requirements or a license to conduct activities in this area to pose a threat (3rd AAS, 14th AAS).

The court may not see a threat of harm in the following violations:

• international road transportation without an admission certificate (Part 2 of Article 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). In practice, there is an example when the court considered that this violation is not potentially dangerous (17th AAS​​​​​​);
• violation of advertising legislation (Part 1 of Article 14.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). The court replaced the fine with a warning, indicating that at the time the decision of the administrative body was made, the controversial advertisement was removed (14th AAS);
• sale of alcohol without a license (Part 3 of Article 14.17​​​​​​​ of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). The fine can be replaced with a warning if the legality of the product is proven (4th AAS​​​​​​​, 15th AAS​​​​​​​);
• violation of the requirements of technical regulations (Part 1 of Article 14.43 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). Some courts indicate that the qualification of a violation under this rule in itself indicates that there is no threat of harm, so the fine can be replaced with a warning (4th AAS​​​​​​​);
• failure to receive money into a bank account from a non-resident for services provided to him (Part 4 of Article 15.25 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). The court may replace the fine with a warning if the administrative body has not proven the existence of harm or the threat of causing it (14th AAS​​​​​​​);
• unreliable customs declaration (part 2 of article 16.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). The fine can be replaced with a warning if the violator has made a security payment that exceeds the amount of customs duties payable (AS of the East Siberian District).

The violation was committed by a small or medium-sized business entity

Information about the organization or entrepreneur must be included in the register. If they are not there or they are included in the register after the violation, the fine will not be replaced with a warning (8th AAS, 10th AAS, 17th AAS).

Violation committed for the first time

When assessing the fulfillment of this condition, the following points are important.

1. A violation is considered committed for the first time even if the period during which the person was considered punished for earlier violations has expired (Armed Forces of the Russian Federation).

Please note: the Supreme Court indicates that any violations are taken into account, not just homogeneous ones. For example, if an organization was previously fined for violating migration rules and the one-year period has not expired, the next fine for violating labor laws will not be replaced by a warning.

2. When determining repetition, it is necessary to compare the dates of commission of violations, and not the dates of decisions on prosecution. A new violation will be considered repeated, even if the decision on the previous violation was made later than the commission of the new one (RF Armed Forces).

The violation was detected within the framework of state control

Courts, as a rule, broadly interpret the concept of state and municipal control, including:

• all types of inspections provided for by Law N 294-FZ, including control measures carried out without interaction with legal entities and individual entrepreneurs (13th AAS, 14th AAS);
• prosecutor's inspections (AS SKO, 4th AAS​​​​​​). At the same time, there is an opposite position (16th AAS);
• police checks (3rd AAS, 11th AAS);
• administrative investigations (13th AAS, 14th AAS​​​​​​).

The practice is ambiguous in situations where the reason for initiating an administrative case is the discovery of data indicating the presence of violations.

Some courts believe that in this situation, replacing a fine with a warning is not applicable in principle, since state control was not carried out. This approach is mainly found in disputes related to customs violations (15th AAC, 20th AAC​​​​​​). For other disorders, this approach is also sometimes used (17th AAS​​​​​​).

Do entrepreneurs work in prison?

New Art. 4.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation now provides that persons who are small and medium-sized businesses, carrying out business activities without forming a legal entity, and legal entities, as well as their employees, for the first time committed an administrative offense identified during the implementation of state control (supervision), municipal control, in cases where the imposition of an administrative penalty in the form of a warning is not provided for in the relevant article, Section. II Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation or the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses, administrative punishment in the form of an administrative fine is subject to replacement with a warning in the presence of circumstances provided for in Part 2 of Art. 3.4 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Thus, FKU SIZO-1 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Altai Republic did not pay a fee for the negative impact on the environment on time.

For this, the head of pre-trial detention center No. 1 was fined 3,000 rubles. according to Art. 8.41 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

However, the judge of the Gorno-Altai City Court of the Altai Republic limited himself to issuing a warning to the official.

The Supreme Court of the Altai Republic stated in this regard that, within the meaning of Art. 4.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it is applied if the person punished belongs to small and medium-sized businesses, is its manager or employee.

The concept of small and medium-sized businesses is defined by the Federal Law of July 24, 2007 No. 209-FZ “On the development of small and medium-sized businesses in the Russian Federation.”

These include those registered in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and meeting the conditions established by Part 1.1 of Art. 4 of Law No. 209-FZ, business societies, business partnerships, production cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, peasant (farm) farms and individual entrepreneurs.

Article 4.1 of Law No. 209-FZ provides for a register of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs that meet the conditions for classification as small and medium-sized businesses, maintained by the federal executive body exercising the functions of control and supervision of compliance with legislation on taxes and fees.

Applying Art. 4.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the judge did not find out whether FKU SIZO-1 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Altai Republic belongs to small and medium-sized businesses, which ultimately influenced the correctness of the decision made.

On this basis, the Supreme Court of the Altai Republic, by Resolution No. 4-a-140/2016 dated September 30, 2016, canceled the decision and sent the case for a new trial.

But the Knyazhpogostsky District Court (Komi Republic) in Decision dated August 29, 2016 No. 12-89/2016 stated that the institutions of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia under Art. 4.1.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation are subject to.

The Verkhnekolymsky District Court (Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)) in Decision dated September 27, 2016 No. 12-16/2016 found that the State Unitary Enterprise “Housing and Communal Services” and its branches do not belong to business entities. This can be seen from the charter of the enterprise, the certificate of registration of the legal entity In addition, there is no extract from the Unified Register of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.

By the way, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow Region, in Resolution No. A41-108672/15 dated September 20, 2016, explained that Part 1 of Art. 4.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is not applied by the court if it does not follow from the case materials that the administrative offense was committed by the company for the first time, and the company is a small or medium-sized business.

When to require warning

Regardless of your legal form, insist that you receive a warning instead of a fine if:

• the offense was committed for the first time;
• the warning is provided for in the article section. II Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation or the law of a subject of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses;
• no harm has been caused or there is no threat of harm;
• there is no property damage.

Go to Engine replacement procedure for registration in the traffic police and everything about reconciling engine numbers

These rules are called “on a general basis”. They are enshrined in Part 2 of Art. 3.4 and part 3.5 of Art. 4.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. If the above conditions are met, inspectors of regulatory and supervisory authorities are required to issue a warning rather than a fine.

If the inspector does not issue a warning, ask the court to apply such a measure instead of a fine.

Example

The court ordered a warning

The prosecutor's office conducted an audit of the implementation of legislation on personal data in the activities of the chairman of the MIR HOA. His guilt was proven by the materials of the case: an inspection report, information about identified violations, the results of an unscheduled documentary inspection, an order to conduct an unscheduled documentary inspection, an order to eliminate the violation, the charter of the partnership, the minutes of the meeting of HOA members on the election of the chairman, a statement from the chairman himself.

Given the available evidence, the magistrate qualified the actions of the chairman under Art. 13.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - violation of the procedure established by law for the collection, storage, use or dissemination of information about citizens.

The chairman admitted his guilt and asked to impose a penalty in the form of a warning, applying Part 2 of Art. 3.4 and part 3.5 of Art. 4.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The court found the chairman of the MIR HOA guilty of committing an administrative offense under Art. 13.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and imposed an administrative penalty in the form of a warning.

It doesn’t matter which inspector gave you a fine instead of a warning—the prosecutor or the housing inspector. Ask the court to impose a penalty on you in the form of a warning.

Example

Which court can replace a fine with a warning?

Only courts of first and appellate instances can replace a fine with a warning. The cassation court has limited competence. It does not establish the circumstances of the case and does not evaluate the evidence (resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated January 11, 2017 No. F05-19676/2016).

Important!

As the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated, if a legal entity commits an administrative offense and specific officials are identified through whose fault it was committed, it is permissible to bring both the legal entity and the officials to administrative liability under the same norm (clause 15 of the Plenum resolution RF Armed Forces dated March 24, 2005 No. 5).

We invite you to familiarize yourself with: Sample agent remuneration act

A similar position was expressed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its resolution dated November 10, 2016 No. 302-AD16-14642. It states that the issue of reducing sanctions is related to the assessment of evidence in the case, and this is within the competence of the courts of first and appellate instances.

When considering a case, the arbitration court of cassation checks whether the conclusions of the courts of the first and appellate instances on the application of the rule of law correspond to the circumstances established by them in the case and the evidence available in the case (Part 3 of Article 286 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Reason 5. The company has financial difficulties and it is difficult for it to pay the full amount of the fine

When considering an administrative case, the labor inspector takes into account not only the nature of the offense and its consequences, but also the property and financial situation of the company and the perpetrators. The labor inspector can reduce the amount of the fine by half than provided for by the norm, if the minimum amount of the fine for officials is at least 50,000 rubles, and for legal entities is at least 100,000 rubles (parts 2.2, 2.3 of article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Apply for an administrative fine in the amount of half the minimum amount, for example, if an employee was allowed to work without a mandatory psychiatric examination (Part 3 of Article 5.27.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). In this case, the labor inspector makes decisions against each employee and the company faces multimillion-dollar fines. A similar petition can be submitted when the employer did not provide employees with personal protective equipment (part 4 of article 5.27.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Documents about the financial position of the company must be attached to the application. For example, a certificate in form No. P-3 “Information on the financial condition of the organization” (Appendix No. 7 to the order of Rosstat dated August 5, 2020 No. 390) or a report on financial results (Appendix No. 1 to the order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 2, 2010 No. 66n).

Normative base

Important Takeaways

1. An employer against whom administrative proceedings have been initiated should take an active position.
He has the right to give explanations on the case and file motions. 2. The inspector is obliged to find out the circumstances mitigating and aggravating administrative liability. With the help of a petition, show the inspector facts that reduce liability.

We invite you to familiarize yourself with: Shift work schedule: types, what happens - features of 12 and 24 hour modes - 2 after 2, 3 after 3, a day after three

3. The inspector has the right to apply a warning if an administrative offense has been committed for the first time, there is no harm to the life and health of people, there is no threat to the security of Russia or emergency situations, and there is no property damage.

Star for correct answer

Wrong

Right!

In what form should a petition be submitted during proceedings in cases of administrative offenses:

included in the text of the protocol on an administrative offense;

drawn up in any written form;

drawn up in the form approved by order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 2, 2010 No. 66n.

Continuous threats

Part 1 art. 4.1.1 The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation contains a whole bunch of restrictions. In particular, it is not subject to application in the event of an administrative offense under Art. 14.31–14.33, 19.3, 19.5, 19.5.1, 19.6, 19.8–19.8.2, 19.23, parts 2 and 3 art. 19.27, art. 19.28, 19.29, 19.30, 19.33 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the LLC placed advertising boards above the roadway.

FAS MO, in Resolution No. A41-108677/15 dated October 6, 2016, explained to the public that, according to Part 2 of Art. 3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a warning is established for administrative offenses committed for the first time in the absence of causing harm or a threat of harm to the life and health of people, objects of flora and fauna, the environment, objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, state security, threats emergency situations of natural and man-made nature, as well as in the absence of property damage.

Taking into account the interrelated provisions of Part 2 of Art. 3.4 and part 1 of Art. 4.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the court did not see any grounds for applying the provisions of Art. 4.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, since it does not follow from the case materials that there are conditions provided for in Part 2 of Art. 3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in terms of such circumstances as the absence of a threat of harm to an indefinite number of persons.

The reference to the fact that the company belongs to small and medium-sized businesses was not accepted by the court, since the presence of these circumstances is not a sufficient basis for applying the provisions of Art. 4.1.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

FAS Central Election Commission, in Resolution No. A83-1024/2016 dated September 29, 2016, also decided that alcoholic products in the amount of 272 bottles, which were in circulation without accompanying documents and seized from the LLC, posed a threat of harm to the life and health of people, therefore the LLC should be fined without warnings.

But in another case, an employee of the Department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia in St. Petersburg, during an unscheduled inspection, discovered that bread was being baked by a citizen of Uzbekistan, whose patent indicated the profession of “bricklayer”.

For this, the individual entrepreneur was fined 400,000 rubles.

However, the St. Petersburg City Court, in Resolution No. 12-166/2016 4A-1205/2016 dated September 21, 2016, decided that in this case this fact does not pose a threat to harm to people’s lives and health, so it canceled the fine and issued only a warning.