Criteria of low significance for administrative offense

The article deals with current problems of Article 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences application according to which a person who commits an administrative offense may be discharged from liability. The analysis of additional criteria frequently mentioned in judicial acts, which define significance of administrative offence, is provided. Contemporary Russian legislation does not contain an exhaustive, fixed list of criteria according to which a particular administrative offense may be defined as insignificant. It is considered that the absence of the real threat to public relations is an attribute of little significance, but it is unclear how to determine the real absence of such threat. In practice a judge, an authority, or an official authorized to decide on administrative violations treat them in their own way. Consequently, it presents uncertainty for a judge, an official, or an authority while examining cases involving administrative offences. They have to assess every offense on the grounds of their inner conviction. Thus, an authorized person passing judgments refers to quite different criteria from Article 2.9 of the Administrative Code to prove insignificance of an offence. The author attempts to determine the main and additional criteria for an offense to be considered insignificant.