ПОРУШЕННЯ ПРАВИЛ ДОРОЖНЬОГО РУХУ: ЧИ ПРАВОМІРНА АДМІНІСТРАТИВНА ВІДПОВІДАЛЬНІСТЬ В «АВТОМАТИЧНОМУ РЕЖИМІ»?

Abstract

The article is devoted to the latest innovations of the Ukrainian legislation in 2015, 2017 (primarily Articles 14-2, 279-3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Ukraine) to introduce a special procedure for the prosecution of automatically recorded administrative offenses in the safety of road traffic sphere, in the context of respect for human rights. The author carries out a comparative analysis of these innovations with the same innovations in 2008 in the context of the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the recognition unconstitutional of art. 14-1, h. 6 Art. 258. The author proves the need to bring these articles (14-2, art. 279-3), which violates the author's opinion, some of the fundamental human rights and freedoms, in line with the Constitution and other laws of Ukraine. In Art. 279-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, according to the author, it is necessary to provide that the person for whom the vehicle is registered or who imported the vehicle into Ukraine is not liable if it is established that at the time of the offense such vehicle was driven by another person. After all, bringing a person to administrative responsibility is possible only in the presence of the fact of an administrative offense and the guilt of the person in its commission, which is confirmed by appropriate evidence. Due to the principle of presumption of innocence to be applied in cases of administrative offenses, all doubts about the event of violation and guilt of the person prosecuted are interpreted in his favor, unproven event and guilt of a person must be equated to proven innocence.

The author believes that fixing traffic violations in automatic mode, as well as fixing in photography mode (video recording) violations of the rules of stopping, parking, parking vehicles, in our opinion, can be useful in terms of reducing the latency of traffic violations. But the author regrets that previous attempts to inculcate the best practices of the European Union in the field of combating traffic violations to the Soviet Administrative Code in 1984, while ensuring the rule of law, respect for human rights and freedoms, have already failed. According to its legal tools, the Soviet Administrative Code of 1984 is clearly not designed for such innovations. The author fully shares the point of view of scientists who justify the need to replace the current Code of Administrative Offenses with a qualitatively new code developed based on the Constitution of Ukraine and international conventions on human rights. Also, the new Code should, in the opinion of the author, define guarantees of observance of the rights of vehicle owners, first presumptions of innocence, at their prosecution.