The violation is not a reason for the termination of administrative proceedings in the case, but according to the rule of the Administrative Code, it entails a change in the Inspection resolution.
By the resolution of the State Institution "I" dated August 2, 2013, K. was brought to administrative responsibility under part eight of Article 167 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code) with the imposition of a fine in the amount of one hundred monthly calculation indices (hereinafter referred to as MCI) in the amount of 173,100 tenge. By the ruling of the specialized Administrative Court of Pavlodar dated August 29, 2013, the decision of the State Institution "I" was canceled, the proceedings in the case under part eight of Article 167 of the Administrative Code were terminated due to the absence of elements of an administrative offense in K.'s actions. In the protest, the Deputy Prosecutor General argued that the specialized administrative court had improperly applied the norms of law and that the termination of administrative proceedings in the case was illegal, and that the authorized body had correctly qualified K.'s actions under part eight of Article 167 of the Administrative Code. He asked to cancel the ruling of the specialized administrative court of Pavlodar dated August 29, 2013, to amend the resolution of the State Institution "I", reducing the administrative penalty imposed on K. to the amount provided for by the sanction of part eight of Article 167 of the Administrative Code, that is, to thirty MCI.
After examining the case materials, the Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan overturned the ruling of the Specialized Administrative Court of Pavlodar dated August 29, 2013 and amended the Inspection resolution dated August 2, 2013 on the following grounds. As can be seen from the case file, on June 19, 2013, during an inspection conducted by the Prosecutor's office of the Irtysh district of the Pavlodar region in the State Committee for State Control and Public Procurement, a violation of the Law "On Public Procurement" was revealed, which was expressed, in particular, in the fact that the director of the State Committee for Public Procurement, K. No measures were taken to recognize a potential supplier, K LLP, which had not fulfilled its contractual obligations, as an unscrupulous participant in public procurement.
The violation is not a reason for the termination of administrative proceedings in the case, but according to the rule of the Administrative Code, it entails a change in the Inspection resolution.
The Specialized Administrative Court of Pavlodar motivated the termination of the proceedings by pointing out that the authorized body had incorrectly imposed an administrative penalty on K. in the form of a fine of one hundred MCI, exceeding the amount of the penalty provided for by the sanction of part eight of Article 167 of the Administrative Code, as well as the conclusion that at the time of consideration of the case K. She was no longer the subject of an administrative offense, since on July 29, 2013, she was dismissed from the post of director of the State Committee for the Protection of Human Rights. This court's conclusion is the result of improper application of the law, since according to the first part of Article 34 of the Administrative Code, an official is held administratively liable if he commits an administrative offense in connection with non-performance or improper performance of his official duties, and in accordance with the second part of Article 5 of the Administrative Code, the time of commission of an administrative offense is the time of the act provided for in the special part of the Administrative Code., regardless of the time of onset of the consequences. As established in the case, at the time of the commission of the offense, K. held the position of director of the GKP "D", therefore, in the absence of the grounds provided for in Article 69 of the Administrative Code, her subsequent loss of official status cannot entail termination of administrative proceedings and exemption from administrative responsibility. Reasonably involving K. to be administratively liable for violating the legislation on public procurement, the authorized body allowed the incorrect application of the law, imposing on the offender a penalty exceeding the penalty provided for in the sanction of part eight of Article 167 of the Administrative Code in the form of thirty MCI. This violation is not a ground for termination of administrative proceedings in the case, but in accordance with subparagraph 2) of Article 665, subparagraph 3) of the first part of Article 667 of the Administrative Code entails a change in the resolution of the State Institution "I" dated August 2, 2013. Based on the above, guided by subparagraph 2) In the first part of Article 664, Articles 672 and 676 of the Administrative Code, the Supervisory Judicial Board for Civil and Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan overturned the ruling of the specialized administrative court of Pavlodar dated August 29, 2013. The resolution of the State Institution "I" dated August 2, 2013 was amended: the amount of the administrative penalty in the form of a fine imposed on K. under part eight of Article 167 of the Administrative Code was reduced to an amount equal to thirty MCI – 51,930 tenge. The rest of the Inspection resolution of August 2, 2013 remained unchanged.
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
