В проведенных исследованиях о соста

В проведенных исследованиях о составе административного правонарушения подведем итог.
Признаваемый административным правонарушением акт - это антиобщественное вредоносное деяние, несущее урон системе общественных отношений, но в отличие от преступления, административное правонарушение не рассматривается государством в качестве общественно опасного деяния.
При этом граница между антиобщественной вредоносностью административного проступка и общественной опасностью преступления устанавливается при формировании составов административных проступков законодателем (а не правонарушителем), причем зачастую достаточно точно и четко.
Состав административного правонарушения включает несколько элементов, установление которых является необходимым условием для привлечения к административной ответственности.
В пункте 2 ст. 24.5 КоАП РФ отдельно указано на два обстоятельства, относящихся к составу административного правонарушения, при наличии любого из которых производство по делу об административном правонарушении исключено:
недостижение физическим лицом на момент совершения противоправных действий (бездействия) возраста, предусмотренного КоАП РФ для привлечения к административной ответственности;
невменяемость физического лица, совершившего противоправные действия (бездействие).
Признаки административного правонарушения необходимо отличать от юридического состава административного правонарушения. Понимание такого различия важно больше практически, чем теоретически. При наличии всех признаков административного правонарушения может отсутствовать признаки состава административного правонарушения, что исключает возможность привлечения лица его совершившего к административной ответственности.
Правильная юридическая квалификация состава административного правонарушения облегчает его разграничение, например, с преступлением. Отграничение их проводится в основном по юридическим критериям элементов их составов.
На основании проведенного исследования можно сделать вывод о том, что необходимо (причем на законодательном уровне) унифицировать подходы к вине юридического лица (взяв за основу объективный подход), поскольку природа административной ответственности едина независимо от сфер, в которых она применяется. При этом в унификации в первую очередь нуждается именно субъективное основание публичноправовой ответственности юридических лиц. Это объясняется также тем, что правовые подходы Конституционного Суда РФ и законодателя к вине юридических лиц разделились (субъективная - для налоговых правонарушений и нарушений законодательства о применении контрольно-кассовых машин, объективная - для таможенных правонарушений). При этом для вопросов унификации субъективной стороны не имеет значения распределение бремени доказывания, поскольку это относится к процессуальному основанию административной ответственности.

Результаты (английский) 1:

Studies on the composition of the administrative offence to summarize.Recognized by the administrative offence Act is liable for any malicious act anti-social damage system of social relations, but unlike crimes, administrative offence is not regarded by the State as a socially dangerous act.While the border between antisocial vredonosnost′û administrative misconduct and public danger of crimes is set when forming convoys of administrative offences the legislator (rather than the offender), often accurately and clearly.The composition of administrative offence includes several items, the establishment of which is a prerequisite for bringing to administrative responsibility.In paragraph 2 of art. 24.5 the code of administrative offences are separately indicated on the two key issues relating to the composition of the administrative offence, any of which are subject to an administrative offence is excluded:failure by an individual at the time of the illegal actions (inactivity) of the age specified in the code of administrative offences for bringing to administrative responsibility;the insanity of the natural person who committed illegal acts (or omissions).Signs of administrative offence must be distinguished from legal composition of administrative offence. Understanding this distinction is important more practically than theoretically. If you have all the signs of administrative offence may not have elements of administrative offence, which excludes the possibility of attracting individuals it has committed to administrative responsibility.Proper legal characterization of the composition of the administrative offence makes it easier to distinguish, for example, to the crime. Separating them is conducted mainly on the legal test for elements of their compositions. Based on the study it can be concluded that it is necessary (and at the legislative level) to standardize approaches to fault the legal person (on the basis of the objective approach), because the nature of administrative responsibility is common regardless of the areas in which it applies. In doing so, harmonization primarily needs a subjective basis publičnopravovoj liability of legal persons. This is also due to the fact that legal approaches the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and of the legislator to the fault of the juridical persons divided (subjective-for tax offences and violations of the law on the application of control-cash machines, objective-for customs offences). With issues of unification of subjective side doesn't matter, the burden of proof as this applies to the procedural base of administrative responsibility.

Результаты (английский) 2:

In the study of the composition of an administrative offense summarize.
Recognized administrative offense act - is antisocial malicious act, bearing damage system of social relations, but unlike the crime, an administrative offense is not considered by the state as a socially dangerous act.
In this case, the boundary between anti-social harmfulness of an administrative delinquency and social danger of the crime established in the formation of an administrative misconduct legislator (not the perpetrator), often accurately and clearly.
The composition of the administrative offense consists of several elements, the establishment of which is a prerequisite for bringing to administrative responsibility.
Paragraph 2 of Art. 24.5 of the Administrative Code separately stated on two factors relating to the composition of the administrative offense, if any of them on trial for an administrative offense is possible:
the natural person at the time of the commission of unlawful acts (inaction) aged under the Administrative Code for the imposition of administrative sanctions;
insanity of a natural person who has committed illegal actions (inaction).
Signs of an administrative offense must be distinguished from the legal structure of the administrative offense. Understanding this difference is important great practical than theoretical. With all signs of an administrative offense may be no signs of an administrative offense, which eliminates the possibility of attracting a person to commit it to the administrative responsibility.
The correct legal qualification of an administrative offense facilitates its distinction, for example, with the crime. Delimitation of them carried out mainly on the legal test elements of their compositions.
Based on the study it can be concluded that it is necessary (and at the legislative level) to unify approaches to the fault of a legal entity (taking as a basis for an objective approach) because the nature of the administrative responsibility of a single independent from the areas in which it is applied. In the unification primarily need is a subjective basis of public law liability of legal persons. This is due to the fact that the legal approach of the Constitutional Court and the legislator to the fault of legal entities are divided (subjective - for tax offenses and violations of the law on the use of cash registers, the objective - for customs offenses). Moreover, for questions of unification of the subjective side of it does not matter distribution of the burden of proof as it relates to the procedural grounds of administrative responsibility.

Результаты (английский) 3:

studies on the composition of administrative offence to summarize.
between the administrative offence is an act of malicious actwith damage to the system of public relations, but in contrast to the crimes, administrative detention is not regarded the state as a socially dangerous act. "the boundary between the deviant вредоносностью administrative misconduct and crime of public risk is the legislator (and combinations of administrative misconductthe offender)often enough to precisely and clearly.
the administrative offence includes several elementsthe establishment of which is the prerequisite of administrative responsibility. "in paragraph 2 of art. 24.5 коап rf separately indicated two circumstancesrelating to the composition of administrative offence, any of which the proceedings of administrative penalty way:.not a person at the time of the commission of unlawful acts (omissions) age under коап rf to administrative liability;
with the individualcommitted wrongful acts (or omissions).
of administrative offences should be distinguished from legal staff of administrative offence.understanding this distinction is more practically than theoretically. with all of the administrative offences may not be the evidence of administrative offencesthat excludes the possibility of person of administrative liability.
the legal qualifications of administrative offence facilitates distinctionfor example, with the crime. отграничение them is mainly on the legal criteria of their formulations.
under study can be concludedthat is, at the legislative level) to unify the approaches to fault entity (on the basis of an objective approach), the nature of administrative responsibility one regardless of the areain which it is used. in the unification of first needs is the subjective reason публичноправовой liability of legal persons. this is also due to the factthe constitutional court of the russian federation, and that the legal approaches to fault entities divided legislature (subjective for tax offences and violations of the law on the application of the cash machinesobjective to customs offences). the unification of subjective questions by the doesn't matter distribution of burden of proofsince it refers to the procedure of the administrative responsibility.