Peculiarities of the application of measures of procedural coercion in administrative proceedings

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of the peculiarities of the application of measures of procedural coercion in administrative proceedings.
 It is noted that the application of measures of procedural coercion is related to the restriction of personal freedom and will of citizens. Therefore, measures of procedural coercion should be applied only in accordance with their purpose, in the presence of grounds established by law and in the manner established by law.
 It is indicated that a warning is a written remark addressed to a person about violation of order in a court session or failure to comply with the instructions of the court chairman. For example, offensive accusations of participants in the court process, remarks, failure to observe silence in the courtroom, etc. The application of a warning is formalized by a court decision and recorded in the minutes of the court session.
 It is emphasized that the temporary seizure of evidence for examination by the court is the requisition by the court of written and material evidence that was not presented for examination by the court without valid reasons. For example, non­submission of a regulatory act by a government body in order to avoid checking the presence of norms that contradict the Constitution and laws of Ukraine violates the rights and legitimate interests of individuals or legal entities.
 It is indicated that the pretext applies to properly notified persons whose personal participation is recognized by the court as mandatory, witnesses who did not appear at the court session without a valid reason or did not report the reason for non­appearance through the National Police of Ukraine, with compensation to the state treasury costs for its implementation.
 It is emphasized that the application of procedural coercion measures is of great importance, as it provides the head of the administrative court with real tools of influence on persons who violate the rules established by the court, creating obstacles to a proper trial.
 It is noted that the court may cancel its decision on the imposition of a fine if the person against whom it was issued has eliminated the committed violation or provided evidence of the seriousness of the reasons for not fulfilling the relevant requirements of the court or its procedural obligations.