ЩОДО ПИТАННЯ ПРО РЕФОРМУ АДМІНІСТРАТИВНОГО ЗАКОНОДАВСТВА В РЕСПУБЛІЦІ БІЛОРУСЬ 2020 РОКУ (ЧАСТИНА 3)

Abstract

In the first and second parts of this article, which were published in this scientific journal (Nos. 1 and 4 for 2020), methodological approaches to reforming the Belarusian administrative legislation, systematic revision and differentiation of administrative penalties and administrative liability, synchronization of the grounds for administrative responsibility with the grounds criminal liability and the institution of criminal liability, issues of minimizing the formal composition of administrative offenses, incl. compositions of offenses of a civil nature, etc. The third part of this article discusses options for solving the problem of a significant number of administrative offenses in the field of road safety and transport operation, as well as proposals for improving a number of provisions of the Procedural Code of the Republic of Belarus on administrative offenses. In the Republic of Belarus, with proper organization and technical support, the introduction of penalty points as an administrative penalty can be an effective measure of administrative influence and directly affect the reduction of administrative offenses, especially by road users (given the large number of protocols, which are formed annually in this direction). This type of administrative penalty can be complex, because, on the one hand, allows not to apply a fine for minor offenses in favor of the so-called «accumulative» system of penalties, on the other hand, has a positive effect on prevention of offenses (especially in traffic), especially committed repeatedly (and systematically), as it causes the onset of serious negative consequences and restrictions for the offender. Given the current law enforcement practice of conducting administrative proceedings at different stages, it is necessary to: first, streamline the number of procedural actions to collect and verify evidence; secondly, to guarantee at the level of law the observance of the rights and freedoms of participants in the process during the control, supervision and administrative jurisdiction of state bodies (this would reduce the time of the administrative process and at the same time improve the quality of procedural guarantees); thirdly, to improve the regulation of the process (this would reduce the scope of procedural actions applied during the proof in cases of administrative offenses, without reducing the quality of such proof).