Repetition of administrative offenses

Introduction: the article deals with the concept of repetition, problems of its statutory regulation and application in law enforcement practice by the executive and judicial bodies carrying out administrative proceedings. The main focus is on the problem of the variety of approaches to defining the legal sense and content of this concept. Analysis of the norms of the current Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (RF CAO) shows that repetition is applied as a circumstance that aggravates administrative liability, as an independent qualifying characteristic of the elements of offense, and as a criterion for defining a gross misconduct. At the same time, repeat commitment of an administrative offense is an administrative-prejudicial criterion for qualifying the act as a crime. In each of the above cases of applying the repetition, there is a number of problematic aspects which require a more focused attention of the legislator. This refers, first, to the legal meaning of the concept of similar nature and analogousness of the administrative offense commitment for applying repetition in compliance with the RF CAO, and second, to the necessity of legal regulation for the content of these notions directly in law but not in an act of judicial interpretation. There arises a question about the feasibility of having the institution of repeat commitment of analogous crime in the RF CAO as an aggravating circumstance together with the tendency of increasing the number of the crime elements containing repetition as an independent qualifying characteristic. Another important question is about the concept and the types of duplicity when applying repetition as an administrative-prejudicial criterion for qualifying acts punishable under criminal law. In some cases, a single commitment of an offense is enough for qualifying it; in other cases, offenses need to be committed several times (for example, twice or thrice). In many cases, criteria and signs of repetition are applied taking into account the judicial interpretation practice, with no specification in law. An important criterion for applying administrative-prejudicial norms in qualifying offenses is commitment of a similar offense by a person who previously underwent administrative punishment within the period established by Article 4.6 of the RF CAO. The practice of this norm application is rather questionable as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not always specify this period with reference to Article 4.6 of the RF CAO. Purpose: to justify the current relevance of the chosen research topic; to provide a comparative analysis of statutory regulation of repetition in administrative proceedings and scientific approaches to understanding the legal meaning of the ‘repetition’ concept; to show problematic aspects arising in practice when the concept of repetition is used for qualifying offenses and taking decisions on the punishment. Methods: dialectical method as a universal scientific instrument, general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, generalization, comparison, systemic and structural analysis) and specific scientific methods (formal juridical, formal logical, structural functional). Results: the authors have formulated specific proposals aimed at improving modern legislation in Russia. The proposed measures would allow for optimizing the process of qualifying repeat administrative offenses, including when administrative-prejudicial norms are applied. Conclusions: the concept of repetition of administrative offenses, its legal content and practice of application require complex investigation. There is a need for further improvement and systematization of the RF CAO and RF Criminal Code norms that regulate the rules of applying repetition when qualifying offenses and awarding punishment.