1. Violation by a pedestrian or passenger vehicle Rules traffic -
entails a warning or imposition administrative fine in the amount of five hundred rubles.

2. Violation of the Traffic Rules by a person driving a bicycle, or a driver or other person directly involved in the process of road traffic (except for the persons specified in part 1 of this article, as well as the driver of the vehicle), -
(Paragraph updated as of January 1, 2008 Federal law dated July 24, 2007 N 210-FZ; as amended, put into effect on November 15, 2014 by Federal Law of October 14, 2014 N 307-FZ.

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of eight hundred rubles.

(Paragraph as amended by Federal Law of June 22, 2007 N 116-FZ; as amended by Federal Law of May 7, 2009 N 86-FZ; as amended by Federal Law of May 7, 2009 N 86-FZ; as amended by , put into effect on September 1, 2013 by Federal Law of July 23, 2013 N 196-FZ.

3. Violation of traffic rules by persons specified in part 2 of this article, committed while intoxicated, -
shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand to one thousand five hundred rubles.

(Paragraph as amended by the Federal Law of June 22, 2007 N 116-FZ; as amended by the Federal Law of July 24, 2007 N 210-FZ; as amended by the Federal Law of July 24, 2007 N 210-FZ; as amended by , put into effect on September 1, 2013 by Federal Law of July 23, 2013 N 196-FZ.

Commentary on Article 12.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. The object of the offense is road safety, traffic rules.

2. Part 1 of this article provides for administrative liability for violation of the Traffic Rules by a pedestrian or passenger of a vehicle. Pedestrian is a person who is outside a vehicle on the road and does not work on it. Passenger is a person who is in a vehicle, as well as a person who enters or exits the vehicle.

Part 2 of the article provides for liability for violation of the Traffic Rules by a person driving a bicycle, moped, or driver. A sign of Part 3 of this article is a violation of the Traffic Rules by a pedestrian or a passenger in a state of intoxication.

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

4. Subject this offense is a person driving a moped, bicycle, or other persons participating in the process of road traffic.

Another commentary on Article 12.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. According to the Traffic Rules, a pedestrian is understood as a person who is outside the vehicle on the road and is not working on it. Persons moving in wheelchairs without a motor, driving a bicycle, moped, motorcycle, carrying a sled, cart, baby stroller or wheelchair are considered pedestrians. Within the meaning of the Rules, pedestrians are considered road users.

2. The responsibilities of pedestrians and other road users are defined in clauses 4.1 - 4.8 of the Traffic Rules (clause 4.8 as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 25, 2003 N 595), according to which pedestrians must move on sidewalks or pedestrian paths, and in their absence - along the roadsides. Pedestrians carrying or carrying bulky objects, as well as persons using non-motorized wheelchairs, may walk along the edge of the roadway if their movement on sidewalks or shoulders creates an obstacle for other pedestrians. Outside settlements When moving along the roadway, pedestrians must walk towards the movement of vehicles. Persons moving in wheelchairs without a motor, driving a motorcycle, moped, bicycle, in these cases must follow the direction of travel of the vehicles.

Movement organized foot columns on the roadway it is allowed only in the direction of movement of vehicles, on the right side, no more than four people in a row. Pedestrians must cross roadway along pedestrian crossings, including underground and overground, and in their absence - at intersections along sidewalks or roadsides.

In places where traffic is regulated, pedestrians must be guided by the signals of a traffic controller or a pedestrian traffic light, and in its absence, by the signals of a transport traffic light.

Waiting for a route vehicle and a taxi is only allowed on elevated roadway landing sites, and in their absence - on the sidewalk or roadside. In stopping places for route vehicles that are not equipped with raised landing platforms, it is allowed to enter the roadway to board the vehicle only after it has stopped.

3. According to clauses 5.1, 5.2 of the Traffic Rules, passengers of a vehicle are obliged to:

When traveling in a vehicle equipped with seat belts, be wearing them, and when riding a motorcycle, wear a fastened motorcycle helmet;

Boarding and disembarking should be done from the sidewalk or curb and only after the vehicle has come to a complete stop.

If boarding and alighting is not possible from the sidewalk or curb, they can be carried out from the roadway, provided that this is safe and does not interfere with other road users.

Passengers are prohibited from:

Distract the driver from driving the vehicle while it is moving;

When traveling to truck with an onboard platform, stand, sit on the sides or on a load above the sides;

Open the doors of the vehicle while it is moving.

4. C objective side the offense in question is expressed in illegal actions(inaction) of road users (except for the driver of a motor vehicle) not performing their duties, defined by the Rules traffic, or evading their execution (in case of inaction).

5. For the qualifying signs of intoxication, see paragraphs 2 and 3 of the commentary to Art. 12.8.

6. Subjects of this administrative offense are road users (except for the driver of a motor vehicle), whose status is determined by the Road Traffic Rules.

According to the Road Traffic Regulations, a power-driven vehicle means a vehicle, other than a moped, driven by an engine. The term also applies to any tractors and self-propelled machines.

According to clause 1.2 of the Rules, a moped is understood as a two- or three-wheeled vehicle driven by an engine with a displacement of no more than 50 cubic meters. cm and having a maximum design speed of no more than 50 km/h. Bicycles with a suspended engine, mopeds and other vehicles with similar characteristics are considered mopeds.

For the purposes of this article, a driver is understood as a person driving a horse-drawn vehicle. Other persons directly involved in the process of road traffic, within the meaning of Parts 1 and 2 of this article, do not include pedestrians, passengers and drivers of motor vehicles.

7. See note to paragraph 5 of the commentary to Art. 5.1.

Cases of administrative offenses provided for in the commented article are considered by the head of the State Traffic Inspectorate, his deputy, the commander of the regiment (battalion, company) highway patrol service, his deputy, and in relation to administrative offenses provided for in parts 1 and 2 - by State Traffic Inspectorate employees who have special rank, senior district inspectors, district inspectors (see clauses 5, 6, 9, part 2, article 23.3 of the Administrative Code).

In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 23.2 Code of Administrative Offenses specified officials have the right to transfer cases of these offenses committed by minors to commissions on the affairs of minors and the protection of their rights.

8. On the collection of an administrative fine in cases provided for in parts 1 and 2 of the commented article, see paragraph 7 of the commentary to Art. 12.1.

1. Violation of the Traffic Rules by a pedestrian or passenger of a vehicle -

entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred rubles.

2. Violation of the Traffic Rules by a person driving a bicycle, or a driver or another person directly involved in the process of road traffic (except for the persons specified in part 1 of this article, as well as the driver of the vehicle), -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of eight hundred rubles.

3. Violation of traffic rules by persons specified in part 2 of this article, committed while intoxicated, -

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

Commentary to Art. 12.29 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. The object of the offense is recognized public relations in the field of road safety.

The objective side of the acts in question is expressed in violation of traffic rules various categories subjects. The qualifying feature of the objective side of the offense provided for in Part 3 of the commented article is the state of intoxication, which does not allow the subject to objectively assess his actions and their significance, as well as to direct them, which entails an additional danger of his actions.

2. Subject composition offenses are varied and specified in relation to certain provisions of this article. Thus, the subject of the offense provided for in Part 1 is a pedestrian or passenger of a vehicle, i.e. exclusively a citizen who has reached the age of 16. Within the meaning of Part 2, the subject of the offense is a road user driving a vehicle other than a motor vehicle, for example a moped, cart, bicycle, etc. The list of such subjects is open; the defining sign of classifying a person as a subject of an offense is his recognition as a road user who has committed a corresponding violation.

The subjective side of the acts in question is expressed in the intent of the perpetrator.

Post navigation

Judicial practice under Art. 12.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, appealing fines for violation of traffic rules by a pedestrian or other person participating in traffic

ST. PETERSBURG CITY COURT

Judge Gnezdilova I.Ya. Case No. 12-7/17
Judge of the St. Petersburg City Court Rusanova Yu.N., having considered on February 28, 2017 in open court on the premises of the court, with Secretary D., an administrative case on a complaint against the decision of Judge Kirovsky district court St. Petersburg dated January 12, 2017 regarding
K., born<дата>V<адрес>, registered at:<адрес>

installed:

Resolution N 18810078150011597388 of the senior traffic police inspector of OR traffic police traffic police Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs in the Kirovsky district of St. Petersburg Ch. dated September 25, 2015, K. was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 12.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, an administrative penalty was imposed in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 500 (five hundred) rubles.
K. filed a complaint against the above resolution to the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Kirovsky district of St. Petersburg.
By decision of the boss police department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in the Kirovsky district of St. Petersburg D. dated December 17, 2015, the resolution of the traffic police inspector OR DPS of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in the Kirovsky district of St. Petersburg Ch. dated September 25, 2015 was left unchanged, K.’s complaint was not satisfied.
K. filed a complaint against the above resolution and decision to the Kirovsky District Court of St. Petersburg.
By the decision of the judge of the Kirovsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated January 12, 2017, the resolution of the traffic police inspector OR DPS of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Kirovsky District of St. Petersburg Ch. dated September 25, 2015 was left unchanged, K.’s complaint was not satisfied.
K. filed a complaint with the St. Petersburg City Court to cancel the decision of the district court judge dated January 12, 2017 and terminate the proceedings.
In support of the complaint, he indicated that a higher official, as well as a judge of the district court, when considering K.’s complaints against the decision official the requirements of Art. were violated. 30.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, complaints were considered in violation established by law deadlines.
In addition, at the time of the decision by the district court judge, the deadline for bringing K. to trial had expired. administrative responsibility, in connection with which, on the basis of Part 6 of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the district court judge had to terminate the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 12.19 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
K. did not appear at the St. Petersburg City Court, was notified properly about the time and place of consideration of the complaint, requests for postponement court session did not send, the case materials are sufficient to consider the complaint, under such circumstances I believe it is possible to consider the complaint in his absence.
Having checked the case materials and studied the arguments of the complaint, I believe that the decision of the district court judge dated January 12, 2017 is subject to cancellation on the following grounds.
In accordance with clause 8, part 2, art. 30.6 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, when considering a complaint against a decision in a case of an administrative offense, the court checks, on the basis of the materials available in the case and additionally presented materials, the legality and validity of the decision made, in particular, explanations are heard individual, in respect of whom a decision was made in a case of an administrative offense; if necessary, the testimony of other persons participating in the consideration of the complaint is heard, and other evidence is examined.
However, during the consideration of K.’s complaint by the judge of the district court of St. Petersburg, these requirements of the law were not met.
The court did not examine the argument of K.’s complaint that he had not committed the charged offense, the “pedestrian crossing” sign was not visible, and his agreement with the charged offense was indicated in the resolution under the influence of the inspector who issued the resolution.
The court did not evaluate G.’s indicated arguments; G.’s arguments were not verified.
The inspector of the IDPS SR DPS of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the OR Ministry of Internal Affairs for St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region, who identified the offense imputed to G., was not summoned or questioned by the court.
At the same time, G. directly challenges the actions of inspector L., both in terms of the identified traffic violations, and in terms of compiling procedural documents, namely decisions on bringing to administrative liability.
At the same time, the resolution in the case of an administrative offense contains information that G. does not dispute the existence of the event of an administrative offense, however, in the protocol on the administrative offense G. states that there was no “pedestrian crossing” sign in the visibility zone, the sun was shining brightly, G. disputes the commission imputed offense.
Thus, the court did not comply with the requirements of Art. 26.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation on the need for a comprehensive, complete and objective study of all the circumstances of the case, which is significant violation procedural requirements of the Code of Administrative Offenses RF and on the basis of clause 4, part 1, art. 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation entails the cancellation of the judge’s decision and the referral of the complaint for a new consideration.
Based on the above and guided by clause 4, part 1, art. 30.7 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation,

The decision of the judge of the Kirovsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated January 12, 2017, issued on the complaint of K. against resolution N 18810078150011597388 of the senior inspector of the traffic police OR traffic police of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Kirovsky district of St. Petersburg Ch. dated September 25, 2015 and the decision of the chief of police of the Regional Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Kirovsky district of St. Petersburg D. dated December 17, 2015 in the case of an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 12.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in relation to K. - cancel.
K.’s complaint against the resolution and decision of officials dated September 25, 2015 and December 17, 2015 should be sent to the same court for a new consideration.

Judicial practice under Art. 12.29 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

Violation of the Traffic Rules by a pedestrian or other person participating in traffic

Commentary on Article 12.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation:

1. The objects of the administrative offense in question are public relations in the field of ensuring road safety.

2. Traffic rules of the Russian Federation, approved by the Resolution Council of Ministers - Government of the Russian Federation dated October 23, 1993 N 1090 (as amended and additionally), establish the responsibilities of both vehicle drivers and pedestrians, passengers, persons driving a moped, bicycle, and other persons directly involved in the process traffic.

3. From the objective side, the offense provided for in Part 1 of this article is expressed in violation of the Traffic Rules Russian Federation pedestrians and passengers.

The list of rules regulating the behavior of pedestrians is contained in paragraph 4 of these Rules. Pedestrians must: move along sidewalks or pedestrian paths, and outside populated areas when moving along the roadway - towards the movement of vehicles, cross the roadway at pedestrian crossings, obey traffic controller signals, traffic lights, when crossing the roadway outside a pedestrian crossing, do not interfere with traffic vehicles, etc.

Clause 5 of the Russian Federation Traffic Regulations establishes standards of behavior for passengers. These include, in particular, the obligation to wear a seat belt seat belt(if available on the vehicle), when riding a motorcycle, wear a fastened motorcycle helmet, etc.

4. Part 2 of this article establishes liability for violation of the Traffic Rules of persons driving mopeds, bicycles, drivers and other persons participating in the process of road traffic. Clause 24 of the Rules establishes Additional requirements to this category of road users. Thus, persons at least 16 years of age are allowed to drive a moped, and a bicycle horse-drawn cart(sleigh), to be a driver of pack animals, riding animals or herds when driving on roads - for persons at least 14 years old. In the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, this age can be reduced, but not by more than two years.

Drivers of bicycles and mopeds are prohibited from riding without holding the handlebars with at least one hand, carrying passengers other than a child under 7 years of age on an additional seat equipped with reliable footrests, carrying a load that protrudes more than 0.5 m in length, or width due to dimensions, or cargo that interferes with control (clause 24.3 of the Rules), etc.

5. Part 3 of this article establishes the liability of the persons specified in parts 1 and 2 of the commented article for violation of the Traffic Rules committed while intoxicated. For this administrative offense to exist, it is necessary to establish: a) violation by a pedestrian, driver, passenger, driver, persons driving a bicycle or moped, and other persons directly involved in the process of road traffic, of any of the requirements relating to them; b) the relevant road user is in a state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the offense.

6. C subjective side The administrative offenses in question are characterized by an intentional form of guilt.

7. Subjects of an administrative offense can be various road users (except for vehicle drivers) who have reached the age of 16. Part 1 of this article provides for the liability of pedestrians and passengers; under Part 2, persons driving bicycles and mopeds, drivers and other persons directly involved in the process of road traffic are responsible; under Part 3 of the commented article - all the above-mentioned entities.

8. Cases of administrative offenses are considered by the head of the traffic police, his deputy, the commander of a regiment (battalion, company) of the road patrol service, his deputy, and under parts 1 and 2 of this article, also traffic police officers with a special rank, senior district police officers police commissioners, local police commissioners (Article 23.3).

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

Kursk regional court

Judge Muromskaya S.V. Case No. 21-73AK-2011

KURSK REGIONAL COURT

SOLUTION

Judge of Kursk regional court Pereverzeva I.N., having considered on April 05, 2011 in the Kursk Regional Court the complaint FULL NAME1 against the decision of the judge of the Leninsky District Court of Kursk dated February 14, 2011, issued on the complaint FULL NAME1 against the decision of the traffic police inspector about the traffic police traffic police No. 1 of the Internal Affairs Directorate for Kursk region Belomestnykh A.S.

No. 335790 of December 21, 2010 in the case of an administrative offense under Art. 12.29 Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in relation to<адрес> ,

Full name1, DD.MM.YYYY year of birth, native<адрес> , № <адрес> <данные изъяты>

residing at:

u st a n o v i l a: By the resolution of the traffic police inspector of the Traffic Police of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate No. 1 of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Kursk Region Belomestnykh A.S. No. 335790 of December 21, 2010, FULL NAME1 was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Art. 12.29 p.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for violating traffic rules by pedestrians and was subjected to administrative punishment

in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 200 (two hundred) rubles.

By the decision of the judge of the Leninsky District Court of Kursk dated February 14, 2011, the resolution in the case of an administrative offense dated December 21, 2010 in relation to FULL NAME1 was left unchanged, the complaint FULL NAME1 was not satisfied.

Having checked the materials of the case and the arguments of the complaint, I find the judge’s decision subject to cancellation for the following reasons.

In accordance with Art. 24.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the objectives of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses are a comprehensive, complete, objective and timely clarification of the circumstances of each case, its resolution in accordance with the law, ensuring the execution of the decision made, as well as identifying the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of administrative offenses.

By virtue of Art. 1.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a person brought to administrative responsibility cannot be subjected to administrative punishment and measures to ensure proceedings in a case of an administrative offense other than on the basis and in the manner established by law.

Part 1 of Art. 12.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for administrative liability for violation of the Traffic Rules by a pedestrian or passenger of a vehicle.

Finding FULL NAME1 guilty of committing an offense under Part 1 of Art. 12.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the judge proceeded from the fact that FULL NAME1 December 21, 2010 at 5 p.m. 05 min. at the address: Kursk, st.<адрес>, in violation of clause 4.1 of the Traffic Rules of the Russian Federation, moved along the carriageway with a sidewalk.

However, conclusions about the guilt of FULL NAME1 in committing the specified administrative offense were made without a proper assessment of the factual circumstances established in court and the available evidence.

As follows from the testimony in court of witness Belomestnykh A.S.<адрес>- traffic police inspector of the Traffic Police of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate No. 1 of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Kursk Region, the reason for initiating a case of an administrative offense was the fact that at approximately 17:00. 05 min. at the address: Kursk, st. Enthusiasts he stopped a car driven by driver FULL NAME1 for not giving priority in traffic to a pedestrian pedestrian crossing , in connection with which the driver FULL NAME1 was invited by him to patrol car

From the objective side, the offense provided for in Part 1 of Art. 12.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is expressed in illegal actions (inaction) of road users (with the exception of the driver of a motor vehicle) who do not fulfill their duties as defined by the Traffic Rules, or who evade their execution (in case of inaction).

Article 2.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for two forms of guilt: intent and negligence.

Thus, an administrative offense is recognized as committed intentionally if the person who committed it was aware of the illegal nature of his action (inaction) and foresaw it harmful effects and desired the occurrence of such consequences or consciously allowed them or was indifferent to them.

Challenging the conclusion of guilt in committing an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 12.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, FULL NAME1 in the complaint against the resolution of the traffic police official refers to the fact that he was moving along the roadway in the direction of a patrol car, accompanied by a traffic police inspector, he had no intent to commit this administrative offense, since he was fulfilling the inspector’s requirement The traffic police follow him into a patrol car to draw up a report on an administrative offense under Article 12.18 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

These arguments, FULL NAME1, correspond to the factual circumstances established in court and are confirmed by the testimony of witness Belomestnykh A.S.

and indicate the absence in the actions of FULL NAME1 of intent to violate the requirements of clause 4.1 of the Traffic Rules, which was erroneously not taken into account by the judge of the district court.

According to Art. 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a person is subject to administrative liability only for those administrative offenses in respect of which his guilt has been established. Irremovable doubts about the guilt of the person held accountable are interpreted in his favor.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the resolution in the case of an administrative offense is subject to cancellation, and the proceedings in the case are terminated, in the presence of at least one of the circumstances provided for in Art. 24.5 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the materials of the case do not prove the guilt of FULL NAME1 in violating clause 4.1 of the Traffic Rules of the Russian Federation, and, consequently, the presence in his actions of an administrative offense, which by virtue of clause 3, part 1 of Art. 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is the basis for canceling a decision in a case of an administrative offense and terminating proceedings in a case of an administrative offense.

Based on the above, the resolution of the traffic police inspector of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate No. 1 of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Kursk Region Belomestnykh A.S.

No. 335790 of December 21, 2010 and the decision of the judge of the Leninsky District Court of Kursk dated February 14, 2011 are subject to cancellation, and the proceedings in the case should be terminated, due to the absence of elements of an imputed administrative offense in the actions of FULL NAME1.

Guided by Article 30.7-30.9 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, judge FULL NAME4 of the regional court

DECISION:

Resolution of the traffic police inspector on traffic police of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate No. 1 of the Department of Internal Affairs for the Kursk region Belomestnykh A.S. No. 335790 of December 21, 2010 and the decision of the judge of the Leninsky District Court of Kursk dated February 14, 2011 to cancel, the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 12.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to Full Name 1, to be terminated due to the lack of administrative composition offenses.