PROCEDURAL REFLECTION OF VIOLATIONS OF ROAD TRAFFIC RULES IN PROTOCOLS OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES

Abstract

Ensuring road safety is a priority for Ukraine. The state establishes regulations, standards, and rules for transportation, as well as requirements for the technical condition of equipment and the qualifications of road users. However, the primary focus is on the effectiveness of road traffic rules. The issue of responsibility for violations of road traffic rules (hereinafter also referred to as RTR) is pertinent, especially in the context of ongoing development of the transportation system and international cooperation. The purpose of the article is to analyze the judicial practice regarding responsibility for violations of traffic rules and to identify the impact of incorrect citation of the Rules on the decisions made by the courts. The author examines cases where the absence of references to relevant provisions of the RTR in the protocol, or their incorrect specification, result in the impossibility of considering cases of administrative offenses in the field of road safety. Specifically: 1) errors in selecting the RTR section or its omission; 2) failure to reference the specific section of the Road Traffic Regulations without explanation in the protocol, indicating how the violation of legislation regarding road safety occurred; 3) Mentioning in the protocols of administrative offenses more than one section of the RTR considered violated; 4) lack of unity in judicial practice regarding the application of specific provisions of the Road Traffic Regulations; 5) blanket nature of certain RTR norms, necessitating reference to numerous State Standards. The article also examines the procedural options available to the court in the event of establishing one of the aforementioned situations. If the aforementioned issues regarding the application of the rules of the road are present, the court is deprived of the opportunity to make a lawful and well-founded decision in the administrative case, resulting in: 1) returning the administrative material for revision or 2) closing the case, as the judge is unable to establish the guilt of the person in committing the offense, or 3) closing the proceedings in the case due to other circumstances, primarily the expiration of the deadlines for imposing administrative penalties, as provided for in Article 38 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. The choice between returning case materials for further refinement or closing proceedings falls within the discretionary powers of the court.