Administracinio nurodymo institutas : taikymo ypatumai ir problemos

LT2011 m. sausio 1 d., įsigaliojo Administracinių teisės pažeidimų kodekso (toliau – ir ATPK) pakeitimai, įtvirtinantys administracinio nurodymo institutą. Šio instituto įtraukimą į nacionalinę teisės sistemą sąlygojo keletas priežasčių, tai ir siekis bent iš dalies išspręsti nuolat eskaluojamą klausimą, dėl ypatingai didelio teismų darbo krūvio, ir noras pagreitinti administracinių teisės pažeidimų bylų procesą dėl mažiausiai pavojingų veikų, ir galimybė efektyviau surinkti į valstybės biudžetą lėšas, už paskirtas administracines nuobaudas. Straipsniu siekiama išanalizuoti administracinio nurodymo turinį, jo taikymo sąlygas. Atskleidžiami teisinio reguliavimo trūkumai, kurie susidarė įvedus šį institutą, tačiau nepakoregavus, nepapildžius iki tol galiojusio teisinio reguliavimo. Pasitelkiant konkrečias bylas, siekiama nustatyti, ar taikant administracinio nurodymo institutą praktikoje, pasiteisino įstatymų leidėjo, įstatymo iniciatorių ir rengėjų tikslai, ar šis institutas, jo turinys, tinkamai suprastas ir aiškinamas tų subjektų, kuriems pagal kompetenciją priklauso jį taikyti. Pateikiami siūlymai dėl esamo teisinio reguliavimo tobulinimo. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Administracinis nurodymas; Administracinis nurodymas, administracinė atsakomybė, administracinis baustumas, bauda, teisės taikymas, teisės aiškinimas; Administracinė atsakomybė; Bauda, teisės aiškinimas; Administrative liability; Administrative order; Administrative order, administrative liability, administrative punishment, fine, application of law, explanation of law; Explanation of law; Fine.

ENThe institute of administrative order is applicable in many states when less dangerous administrative violations are made. Until January 1, 2011, all administrative legal offences regadlessof their gravity degree were investigate according a common procedure in Lithuania. Only after the alterations of the Code of Administrative Violations, adopted in November, 18, 2010, came into force and the institute of administrative order was established, the possibility to avoid the long process of investigation and examination in cases when less dangerous violations are made appeared. As a consequence of adoption of this institute, the workload of the courts and other institutions, authorized to investigate and examine administrative violations, was reduced; the costs are saved due to the shortage of the administrative violation case procedures. The essence of administrative order is that it is offered for the person within ten working days from the date the protocol of administrative violation is presented (in cases when the violation is recorded not in the presence of the person suspected in performance of administrative violation – from the date the administrative protocol together with the administrative order are sent) to pay half of the minimal fine (but not less than ten litas), established in one of the articles foreseeing liability for administrative violations in Chapter II of the Code, on voluantary basis.Administrative order may be issued not in all cases, only when all conditions applied to issuance of administrative order are satisfied. Anyhow, when applying this institute in practise a few problems arose: not all subject having competence to apply administrative order are capable to properly identify the monetary amount of administrative order in specific cases, when the sanction of article of the Code, where a particular violation is described, does not foresee minimal fine; it is not clear if a person who violated specific article and paid the fine indicated in the administrative order, is presumed as being punished by administrative liabilty; is it possible to apply administrative order in cases when a specific sanction of the article of the Code foresee the only sanction – the warning; is it possible to apply administrative order in cases when the alternative penalty foreseen in the particular santion is not only a fine or warning; by what means the subject issuing administrative order may receive the information about previous punishments of the person, and the information whether the person has paid the fine prescribed by the administrative order. All those problematic issues are discussed in the article. It is analyzed whether the aims of the legislative subjects and initiators of this norm where reached in practice. The authors of the article present proposals for improvement of legal regulation and solution of the above-mentioned problems. [From the publication]