Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Violations 20 12. Vii

New edition of Art. 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. Transfer of weapons -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred to one thousand rubles with or without confiscation of weapons.

2. Violation of the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand to one thousand five hundred rubles.

3. Violation of the rules for the use of weapons and ammunition for them -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand five hundred to three thousand rubles or deprivation of the right to acquire and store or store and carry weapons for a period of one to two years.

Commentary on Article 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. The object of an administrative offense is public relations prevailing in the sphere of arms circulation.

2. The objective side of the first commented article is expressed in the transfer of weapons, that is, in the sending of weapons as luggage without proper escort.

3. The objective side of the second part of Article 20.12 is a violation of the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them. The procedure for transporting weapons is regulated Federal law dated November 13, 1996 N 150-FZ “On Weapons”, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated July 21, 1998 N 814 “On measures to regulate the circulation of civilian and service weapons and cartridges for them in the territory Russian Federation", normative legal acts Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.

It is necessary to distinguish violation of the rules for transporting weapons from illegal transportation of weapons, which is qualified according to the provisions of the Criminal Code. Therefore, an important condition for bringing to administrative responsibility is the availability of permission to store and transport weapons.

4. The objective side of part three is the violation of the rules for the use of weapons and ammunition for them. Weapons can be used only in cases specified by law. The use of weapons should not harm the legitimate rights and interests of the individual, society and the state.

5. The subject of an offense can be citizens and officials.

6. From the subjective side, the offense is intentional.

7. Protocols on administrative offenses are drawn up by officials of internal affairs bodies.

8. Cases of administrative offenses provided for in the commented article are considered by officials of internal affairs bodies. Cases of offenses provided for in parts 1 and 3 can be considered by judges if officials refer them to a judge for consideration.

Another comment on Art. 20.12 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses

1. The object of the offenses for which liability is provided for in this article is public order and public safety, the established procedure for the circulation of weapons.

Article 6 (clause 4) of the Federal Law “On Weapons” establishes a ban on the transfer of weapons.

2. The objective side of the offense provided for in Part 1 of this article is the illegal action of sending civilian and service weapons contrary to the established prohibition. In this case, the transfer of weapons should be distinguished from transportation and transportation (see commentary to Part 2 of this article). Forwarding would be, for example, sending weapons through postal networks. Moreover, the ban on transfer is established in relation to civilian and service weapons (Article 6 of the Federal Law “On Weapons”). The transfer of weapons of other types, as well as civilian and service weapons, which entailed consequences of a certain degree of severity, is qualified in accordance with the norms of the Criminal Code.

3. The subjects of the offense provided for in Part 1 of this article are citizens of the Russian Federation who legally possess weapons (see paragraph 7 of the commentary to Article 20.8), who have transferred weapons (if these actions do not fall under the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - see . clause 2 of the commentary to this article), foreign citizens who purchased on the territory of the Russian Federation civilian weapons under licenses issued by internal affairs bodies on the basis of requests from diplomatic missions of foreign states in the Russian Federation, of which they are citizens, or imported sporting and hunting weapons into the territory of the Russian Federation with an invitation legal entity, having a hunting license, a hunting contract with a specified legal entity or an invitation to participate in sporting events and the corresponding permit from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, who committed the transfer of weapons (unless this act is subject to qualification in accordance with the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation or does not fall within the scope of international standards). Citizens who own weapons illegally and who transfer them bear criminal liability.

4. The subjective side of the offense provided for in Part 1 of the article in question is characterized by guilt in the form of intent; the person is aware of his actions and wants to commit them.

5. The objective side of the offense provided for in Part 2 of this article is expressed in an action (inaction) that violates the established rules for the transportation and transportation of weapons and ammunition for them. Moreover, it should be noted that we're talking about specifically about violation of the rules, and not about illegal transportation, since actions to implement the latter are qualified in accordance with the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Part 1 of Article 222).

Article 27 of the Federal Law “On Weapons” provides for the seizure by internal affairs bodies of weapons and ammunition for them in case of violation of the rules for the transportation and transportation of weapons established by this Law and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation before adoption final decision in the manner prescribed federal legislation RF.

The validity period of a transportation permit is established by the internal affairs body when issuing it based on the calculation of the real time required to deliver weapons and ammunition to their destination, but not more than one month.

The validity period of permits can be extended by the internal affairs body that issued it, in the form established by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.

The issuance of permits for the transportation of weapons and ammunition (cartridges), in replacement of previously issued ones, upon expiration of their validity period, can be carried out by city (including district in cities), district and linear internal affairs bodies along the route upon application of an accompanying person or carrier (customs carrier ) weapons and ammunition (cartridges) in cases where circumstances arise that cause a significant delay in transit or the reloading of weapons and ammunition (cartridges) onto a new vehicle.

7. Neither the disposition nor the sanctions of Part 2 of this article indicate the subjects of the offense. Obviously, they can be citizens of the Russian Federation and foreign citizens (see paragraph 3 of the commentary to this article), who have reached the age of eighteen, possess weapons legally (see paragraph 7 of the commentary to Article 20.8), who have violated the rules of transportation, transportation weapons and ammunition for them.

In contrast to Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation of the RSFSR, which provided for administrative liability of special entities in Parts 3 and 4, Part 2 of the commented article does not establish such liability. At the same time, persons responsible for the transport and transportation of weapons must comply with these rules, since this is part of their job responsibilities, and, bear administrative liability for their violation (unless criminal liability is provided).

8. The subjective side of the offense provided for in Part 2 of this article is characterized by both intentional and careless forms of guilt.

9. The objective side of the offense provided for in Part 3 of the commented article can be expressed in action (inaction).

10. The subjects of the offense provided for in Part 3 of this article are citizens of the Russian Federation who have reached the age of eighteen, who have the right to own and use weapons, foreign citizens (see Article 14 of the Federal Law “On Weapons”) and officials whose duties include use of weapons who violated the rules for the use of weapons and ammunition (unless their actions entail criminal liability).

11. The subjective side of the offense provided for in Part 3 of the commented article can be expressed both in the form of intent and negligence.

1. Transfer of weapons -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred to one thousand rubles with or without confiscation of weapons.

2. Violation of the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand to one thousand five hundred rubles.

3. Violation of the rules for the use of weapons and ammunition for them -

Comments to Art. 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. This article ensures that citizens and organizations comply with the ban on the transfer of weapons established by Art. 6 of the Federal Law of December 13, 1996 N 150-FZ “On Weapons” (as amended and supplemented), as well as implementation in accordance with Art. Art. 24 - 25 of this Federal Law and regulatory legal acts of the Government of the Russian Federation on the rules for the use, transportation, transportation of weapons and ammunition for them.

2. The object of the commented administrative offense is relations in the field of ensuring public order and public safety.

3. The objective side of the offense is characterized by the action associated with the transfer of weapons, violation of the relevant rules for the use, transportation, transportation of weapons and ammunition for them.

For example, in accordance with clause 66 of the Rules for the circulation of civilian and service weapons and ammunition on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1998 N 814 (as amended and supplemented), it is prohibited to use technically faulty weapons and cartridges whose shelf life, storage or use has expired, except in cases of research work and testing or inspection technical condition weapons. The same Rules establish that for the transportation of weapons and ammunition, legal entities are required to ensure that consignments of firearms in an amount of more than 5 units or cartridges in an amount of more than 400 pieces are escorted along the route by guards of at least 2 armed people firearms, coordinate with the internal affairs bodies at the place of registration of weapons and ammunition the route of movement and type of transport, transport weapons and ammunition in the original packaging or in a special container, which must be sealed or sealed (clause 69). After concluding contracts for the transportation of weapons and ammunition, carriers are required to prepare receipts, expenses and accompanying documents in the manner established by the relevant federal executive authorities in agreement with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia (clause 73).

It should be taken into account that the illegal transportation of weapons, their main parts, and ammunition is classified as a crime under Part 1 of Art. 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

4. The subject of this offense is an individual who has reached the age of 18 (Article 13 of the Federal Law “On Weapons”), as well as a legal entity.

5. From the subjective side, the guilt of a legal entity is recognized in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 2.1 of the Code, and the violation committed an individual, characterized by a deliberate form of guilt.

6. Cases of administrative offenses are considered by officials of internal affairs bodies (police) (Article 23.3). In addition, according to Parts 1 and 3 of this article, such cases are considered by judges in cases where officials of internal affairs bodies (police), if necessary, resolve the issue of appointment administrative punishment in the form of confiscation or forfeiture of weapons, they are transferred to a judge for consideration (Part 2 of Article 23.1).

Protocols on administrative offenses are drawn up by officials of internal affairs bodies (police) (Part 1 of Article 28.3).

7. It must be borne in mind that Federal Law No. 398-FZ of December 28, 2010 made the following changes to Part 3 of the commented article, which come into force on July 1, 2011: an alternative administrative penalty in relation to a fine is deprivation of the right for the acquisition and storage or storage and carrying of weapons, and the paid confiscation of weapons and ammunition, which relates to additional penalties, is excluded from the list of administrative sanctions (from July 1, 2011, Article 3.6 of the Code is repealed).

Because of this, taking into account the provisions of Art. 3.8 of the Code, from July 1, 2001, officials of internal affairs bodies (police) will refer cases of these offenses to judges if it is necessary to resolve the issue of imposing punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to acquire and store or store and carry weapons (Part 2 Art. 23.1).

Violation of the rules for using external lighting devices, sound signals, hazard warning lights or warning triangles -
entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred rubles.

(Paragraph as amended by Federal Law of June 22, 2007 N 116-FZ; as amended by Federal Law of July 23, 2013 N 196-FZ.

Commentary on Article 12.20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. The object of the offense is road safety. Technical requirements for external lighting devices, failure to comply with which will prohibit the operation of vehicles, are established by the List of faults and conditions under which the operation of vehicles is prohibited (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 21, 2002 N 127).

2. From the objective side, this offense consists of a number of illegal actions (inaction) related to the rules for using external lighting devices, sound signals, alarms or warning triangles.

To bring the perpetrator to justice under this article, it is necessary to establish what special rules for the use of external lighting devices, sound signals, and alarms were violated. Violation of the rules for using lighting devices can be expressed in the absence of lighting devices, failure to switch high beams to low beams in established cases, failure to use hazard warning lights when blinded, etc.

3. The subjective side of the offense is characterized by guilt in the form of negligence.

4. The subject of the offense is the driver who violated the rules for using external lighting devices, sound signals, hazard warning lights or warning triangles.

Another comment on Article 12.20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. To external lighting devices switched on on a moving vehicle in the dark, in conditions insufficient visibility, as well as in tunnels, include the following lighting devices used depending on the type of vehicle: high or low beam headlights, flashlights, side lights. See also paragraph 3 of the commentary to Art. 12.19.

Technical requirements for external lighting devices, failure to comply with which prohibit the operation of vehicles, are established by the List of malfunctions and conditions under which the operation of vehicles is prohibited (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 21, 2002 N 127; see paragraph 1 of the commentary to Art. 12.5).

According to clause 3 of the List, the following are required for external lighting devices of a vehicle: technical requirements, non-compliance with which is qualified in accordance with the commented article:

The number, type, color, location and operating mode of external lighting devices must comply with the design requirements of the vehicle (on vehicles out of production, it is allowed to install external lighting devices from vehicles of other brands and models);

Headlight adjustment must comply with GOST R 51709-2001;

Availability of serviceable, uncontaminated external lighting devices and reflectors;

The presence of diffusers on lighting devices, the use of lenses and lamps corresponding to the type of this lighting device;

Installation of flashing beacons in compliance with established requirements.

According to clauses 7.1 - 7.3 of the Traffic Rules (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 24, 2001 N 67), the hazard warning lights must be turned on:

When forced to stop in places where stopping is prohibited;

When the driver is blinded by headlights;

When towing (on a towed vehicle).

The driver must turn on the hazard warning lights in other cases to warn road users of the danger that the vehicle may pose.

2. When stopping a vehicle and turning on the hazard warning lights, as well as if they are malfunctioning or missing, an emergency stop sign must be immediately displayed:

In case of a traffic accident;

When forced to stop in places where it is prohibited, and where, taking into account visibility conditions, the vehicle cannot be noticed in a timely manner by other drivers.

This sign is installed at a distance that provides timely warning to other drivers of the danger in a particular situation. However, this distance must be at least 15 m from the vehicle in populated areas and 30 m - outside populated areas.

If there is no or faulty hazard warning light on a towed motor vehicle, a warning triangle must be attached to its rear part.

3. The procedure for using external lighting devices and sound signals, as well as the conditions for using hazard warning lights and warning triangles, are determined accordingly in clauses 19 and 7 of the Traffic Rules.

4. In accordance with clauses 3.4 and 3.6 of the Traffic Rules (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 24, 2001 N 67), a yellow or orange flashing light must be turned on on: vehicles when performing construction, repair or maintenance of roads, loading and transportation of damaged, faulty, as well as other vehicles in cases provided for by law, on vehicles participating in traffic, the dimensions of which exceed the standards established by clause 23.5 of the Rules, as well as on vehicles transporting large, heavy cargo, explosive, flammable, radioactive and potent toxic substances, and in cases established by special rules - on vehicles accompanying such transportation. A yellow or orange flashing light does not provide an advantage in traffic and serves to warn other road users of danger.

Drivers of vehicles of federal postal organizations and vehicles transporting cash proceeds and (or) valuable cargo may turn on a white-moon flashing light and a special sound signal only during attacks on specified vehicles. A white-lunar flashing light does not provide an advantage in traffic and serves to attract the attention of police officers and other persons.

5. On the consideration of cases of administrative offenses provided for in the commented article, see paragraph 5 of the commentary to Art. 12.12.

6. On the collection of an administrative fine in the cases provided for in the article in question, see paragraph 7 of the commentary to Art. 12.1.

Judicial practice under Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, appealing fines for sending weapons, violating the rules of transportation, transportation or use of weapons and ammunition for them

BABAYURT DISTRICT COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF DAGESTAN

SOLUTION
September 26, 2017 village of Babayurt
Babayurt District Court of the Republic of Dagestan, composed of presiding judge Shaipov A.A., with secretary Ch., having considered in open court with the participation of a representative FULL NAME1-FULL NAME4, acting by power of attorney dated August 29, 2017, the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. . 20.12 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,
according to the complaint FULL NAME1 against the resolution of the employee of the Russian Guard of the LRR branch for the city of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyarsky, Tarumovsky, Nogaisky, Babayurtsky districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan dated March 5, 2017,

installed:

By a resolution of an employee of the Russian Guard of the LRR branch for the city of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyar, Tarumovsky, Nogai, Babayurt districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan dated March 5, 2017, FULL NAME1 was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, expressed in the fact that, on February 26, 2017 at 23 o’clock. 00 minutes in the village. Babayurt of the Babayurt district of the Republic of Dagestan violated the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them and was sentenced to an administrative fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles.
In the complaint, FULL NAME1 considers the decision made illegal and asks for the resolution FULL NAME6 dated March 5, 2017, by which he was held administratively liable in the form of a fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles, to cancel, to terminate the proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative liability, indicating in the justification of the complaint , that on September 5, 2017, from the letter of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Babayurt district No. 3/172604418922 dated August 31, 2017, he became aware that resolution No. 592975 had been issued against him in a case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, issued on 03/05/2017 and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles. A copy of the said resolution was handed to him along with a letter from the Department of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Babayurt district No. 3/172604418922 on September 5, 2017. Resolution No. 592975 refers to the offense he committed, the punishment for which is provided for in Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, committed on February 26, 2017 at 23:00, but on that day and at that time he did not see a single inspector of licensing and permitting work of the Department of the Russian Guard and no material was compiled regarding him on that day. He did not receive any notice of the time and place of the consideration of the administrative offense case, no one notified him and he did not receive any letters or notices. In this case, the case of an administrative offense against him, in accordance with the resolution, was considered on March 05, 2017 by an employee of the Russian Guard of the LRR Branch for the cities of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyarsky, Tarumovsky, Nogaisky, Babayurt districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan FULL NAME6 on a day off - Sunday. He could not competently object and give explanations on the merits of the alleged offenses. Thus, the mandatory procedure for bringing him to administrative responsibility has been violated. During the proceedings on the case of an administrative offense, the procedural requirements established by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation were violated and this is the basis for the cancellation of the contested decision official(FULL NAME6), since these violations are essential character and were not allowed to consider the case comprehensively, fully and objectively. As it became known, the resolution in the case of an administrative offense was drawn up on March 5, 2017. Consequently, the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility, established by Part 1 of Article 4.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, in this case expired on May 5, 2017. Under the above circumstances, the decision to bring him to administrative responsibility under Part 2 of Article 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and to impose an administrative penalty cannot be recognized as legal and justified and is subject to cancellation, and the proceedings in the case are terminated, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility.
At the court hearing, the representative FULL NAME4 supported the complaint in general according to the arguments and grounds set out in it and additionally explained that his principal FULL NAME1 did not transport and transport weapons, but carried weapons with him, having permission to carry and store them ROX N 12079120 valid for 22 March 2018, in accordance with paragraphs 62 and 63 of the Rules for the circulation of civilian and service weapons and ammunition on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1998 N 814 “On measures to regulate the circulation of civilian and service weapons and ammunition to him on the territory of the Russian Federation." In accordance with clause 77 of these Rules, citizens of the Russian Federation transport weapons in quantities of no more than five units and cartridges of no more than 1000 pieces on the basis of permits for storage (storage and carrying, storage and use, for import into the Russian Federation) weapons or licenses for the acquisition , collecting or exhibiting weapons. Therefore, in the actions of his principal FULL NAME1 there is no fact of the event of an administrative offense for which administrative liability is provided in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 20 12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. In addition, the protocol on the administrative offense did not indicate the exact time when the act was committed; it was added later, and there were corrections in the dates. The resolution does not indicate the place where it was drawn up, its principal was not notified of the time and place of consideration of the case, and a copy of the resolution was not sent to him.
At the court hearing, FULL NAME5 showed that on February 27, 2017 in evening time he went to the place of residence FULL NAME1 to check the conditions of his storage of weapons. During the inspection, he established that FULL NAME1 the conditions for storing weapons were violated, namely, at the time of the inspection, the metal safe in which the weapons were supposed to be stored was located in the yard, without a door. In this regard, he invited FULL NAME1 to the office to draw up a protocol under Part 4 of Art. 20.8 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. After some time, FULL NAME1 drove up to him in his car and showed him a weapon from a purse. Since FULL NAME1 transported the weapon not in a holster, but in a purse, which did not exclude access to it by unauthorized persons, he drew up a protocol under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - violation of the rules for transporting weapons. He sent these protocols for consideration to the head of the LRR department for the cities of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyarsky, Tarumovsky, Nogaisky, Babayurtsky districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan FULL NAME6
At the court hearing, an employee of the Russian Guard of the LRR branch for the cities of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyar, Tarumovsky, Nogai, Babayurt districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan FULL NAME6, having been duly notified of the time and place of the consideration of the case, did not appear.
Having familiarized itself with the arguments of the complaint, having listened to the explanations FULL NAME4, FULL NAME5 and having studied the case materials, the court considers that the decision in the case of an administrative offense is subject to cancellation and the proceedings in the case to be terminated.
From the protocol on an administrative offense drawn up in relation to FULL NAME7, it follows that on February 27, 2017 in the village. Babayurt, Babayurt district of the Republic of Dagestan, a violation of the rules of transportation of weapons was revealed, i.e. FULL NAME1 transported and carried a pistol MR -79 TM N 1333904409-13 with permission from ROX N 12079120 from 03/22/2013 to 03/22/2018 in a purse, that is, FULL NAME1 committed an offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
From the resolution on an administrative offense drawn up on March 5, 2017 in relation to FULL NAME7, it follows that he was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, expressed in the fact that, on February 26, 2017 at 23 o’clock. 00 minutes in the village. Babayurt of the Babayurt district of the Republic of Dagestan violated the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them and he was sentenced to an administrative fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles.
From the ROH permit N, valid until March 22, 2018, it is clear that the owner this permission FULL NAME1 has the right to store and carry a pistol MR -<адрес>4409.
The objective side of the second part of Article 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is a violation of the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them. The procedure for transporting weapons is regulated by Federal Law of November 13, 1996 N 150-FZ “On Weapons”, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1998 N 814 “On measures to regulate the circulation of civilian and service weapons and cartridges for them in the territory of Russian Federation", regulatory legal acts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.
Thus, the protocol and the resolution on the administrative offense do not indicate specific data on the basis of which, in accordance with a specific norm of the Rules for the circulation of civilian and service weapons and ammunition on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1998 N 814 “ On measures to regulate the circulation of civilian and service weapons and ammunition for them on the territory of the Russian Federation.” The official came to the conclusion that FULL NAME1 transports and transports weapons and that his actions constitute an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation
Thus, the evidence available in the case does not allow us to reliably establish the presence of the incriminated act in the actions of FULL NAME1. There is no other evidence in the case that irrefutably indicates the fact of transportation and transport of weapons. Thus, the totality of the evidence available in the case does not prove the guilt of FULL NAME1 in committing the offense imputed to him.
According to Part 4 of Art. 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, irremovable doubts about the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility are interpreted in favor of this person.
According to the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 1.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, ensuring legality in the application of administrative coercive measures presupposes not only the presence legal grounds for the application of administrative punishment, but also compliance with the procedure established by law for bringing a person to administrative responsibility.
In accordance with clause 6, part 1, art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, one of the circumstances excluding proceedings in a case of an administrative offense is the expiration of the provisions established by Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the limitation period for bringing to administrative responsibility. When checking compliance with the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility, it is necessary to take into account that the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation does not provide for the possibility of interruption given period.
The statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility established by Part 1 of Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, is two months.
As can be seen from the case materials, the circumstances that served as the basis for initiating an administrative violation case against FULL NAME1 took place on February 27, 2017, therefore, the statute of limitations for bringing administrative liability established by Part 1 of Art. 4.5 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation, in this case expired on April 27, 2017.
According to the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 4.5 and clause 6, part 1, art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, proceedings in a case of an administrative offense cannot be started, and the started proceedings are subject to termination if the established statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility has expired.
Based on clause 3, part 1, art. 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, based on the results of consideration of a complaint against a decision in a case of an administrative offense, a decision is made to cancel the decision and terminate the proceedings in the case if at least one of the circumstances provided for in Articles 2.9, 24.5 of this Code is present, as well as if the circumstances on the basis of which are not proven a ruling was made.
In accordance with the provisions of Art. Art. 1.5, 2.1, 24.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, within the framework of administrative proceedings, the question of a person’s guilt in committing an administrative offense, responsibility for which is established by the norms of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses or the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, is subject to clarification.
The resolution in the case of an administrative offense in relation to FULL NAME1 did not enter into legal force.
At the time of consideration of this case, the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility established by Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation has expired, the possibility of discussing issues of a person’s guilt in violating the legislation on the circulation of weapons, after the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to justice, is not provided for by the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Thus, the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative liability during the consideration of a complaint against an official’s decision is a circumstance that excludes the possibility of considering the case by a judge.
In connection with the above, the arguments of the complaint that the official’s decision was made with an incorrect determination of the circumstances relevant to the case and an improper assessment of the evidence are subject to rejection as unfounded.
Based on the above, guided by Articles 30.2 - 30.8 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses,

The complaint, FULL NAME1, will be satisfied.
The resolution of the employee of the Russian Guard of the LRR branch for the city of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyarsky, Tarumovsky, Nogaisky, Babayurtsky districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan dated March 5, 2017, by which FULL NAME2 was brought to administrative liability in the form of a fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles, to cancel, to terminate the proceedings in the case in due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility,
The decision comes into force from the date of its adoption.