The position of the defender in the administrative case

Turkestan region

Tyulkubassky District Court

Sarzhanov G. T. from a lawyer

Position on the case

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 610 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, responsibility is indicated for committing "violations of traffic rules by drivers of vehicles that caused damage to vehicles, cargo, roads, roads and other structures or other property that caused material damage." In addition, the protocol prescribes "material damage", not "material damage". In accordance with subparagraph 5) of Article 767 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, "the description and amount of damage caused by an administrative offense in an administrative offense case, the circumstances are subject to proof." But neither the protocol nor other case materials indicate any information about actual material damage.

Article 610 is a blank one, that is, it refers to another regulatory legal act that provides for an action prohibited by law. The protocol contains subparagraph 11.81.2 of the traffic rules, but such a regulatory legal act does not apply in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Only the traffic rules approved by the Order of the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 30, 2023 No. 534 apply in Kazakhstan. Thus, the authorized person, not knowing his departmental regulatory legal act, referred to a non-existent regulatory legal act in Kazakhstan, which invalidates the protocol of an administrative offense.

In accordance with subparagraph 11.81.2 of the traffic rules, "at unregulated intersections, overtaking is prohibited when driving along the main road that changes direction (with the exception of overtaking from the permissible right side) and a non-main road (with the exception of overtaking at roundabouts, overtaking two-wheeled vehicles without a trailer on the flank, and overtaking from the acceptable right side." But, to the case file, H. According to the testimony of Akhmedov and Kadirbekov's witnesses, the Atyrau-Astarkhan highway is considered to be the main road, which has a traffic area and the direction of which has not been changed. Therefore, overtaking is not prohibited. There is no sign forbidding overtaking on the road.In accordance with subparagraph 11.77.2 of the traffic rules, "before overtaking, the driver must make sure that the driver of the vehicle traveling ahead in this lane has not signaled to maneuver to the left." X.., according to the testimony of witnesses A., K. The indicator light for turning to the left of the car listed by victim S. is not on. In this regard, it can be assumed that overtaking X. complies with Traffic Regulations.

The victim Sabieva also violated the rules of subparagraph 8.48 of the Traffic Rules, since according to it "the signal for maneuvering with the left hand is a light indicator for turning to the left or stretching the left arm to the left or the right arm bent above the elbow at a right angle extended next to it," kh., witnesses A., K. According to the testimony of the victim, the specified Sabieva's car did not turn on the left turn indicator light and S.'s left hand did not reach out to the left.

According to Parts 3, 4 of Article 767 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, "explanations of a person in respect of whom proceedings on an administrative offense are underway, witness testimony is included in the protocol on an administrative offense only after it is fully completed and the specified persons are informed of their rights and obligations provided for by this Code.

In case of non-compliance with the requirements provided for in part three of this article, the explanations and testimony of the witness of the person against whom the proceedings on an administrative offense are being conducted shall be considered invalid as evidence and cannot be recognized as evidence."

In this regard, I ask you to recognize the testimony of the esteemed court, H., witnesses A., K., which are in the case file, as invalid as evidence and not subject to recognition as evidence.

When making a decision, I ask you to take into account the testimony of H., witnesses A., K., presented during the trial.

Thus, I believe that during the trial, the innocence of T. D. H. In the presence of a traffic accident was established by the testimony of witnesses and the diagram, photographs and video of the traffic accident investigated during the trial.

According to Part 2 of Article 741 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, "proceedings in the case of an administrative offense, if all the possibility of collecting additional evidence has been exhausted, exists both when proving the absence of an event of an administrative offense or the composition of an administrative offense on the grounds provided for in paragraphs 1) and 2) of the first part of this Article, and in the presence of lack of evidence, as well as in the case of committing an act, the harm of which is lawful or in circumstances precluding administrative liability in accordance with Chapter 5 of this Code."

Based on the above, proceeding from art. 741 of the Administrative Code, the court

-I ask you to terminate the administrative case under part 1 of Article 610 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on an administrative offense against H. T.

Lawyer Sarzhanov G. T.

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases