9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
The motorist could not have the penalty withdrawn “for disobedience to the lawful demand of a police officer.” Although the document confirming this fact was declared invalid. A
A curious story that finally reached the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation began on December 17, 2021. Then Oleg Sh., a resident of the Mercedes-Benz of the Chelyabinsk region, was stopped by the traffic police personnel. Tinting the side windows of the car turned out to be too strong and the motorist was fined 500 rubles under part 3.1 of art. 12.5 Code of Administrative Offenses. Everything would be fine, but at the same time the driver was asked to remove the film and restore the degree of light transmission from the windows of his vehicle to the original level.
And this document was “shot” when Shpigun’s Mercedes again attracted the attention of traffic police officers – on February 12, 2022 in the city of Troitsk, Chelyabinsk region. The employees discovered the shade again. And in addition to the next fine for it, the citizen received another – already on the basis of part 1 of art. 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, for failure to comply with a lawful request from a police officer. There is a threat of a fine of 2,000 to 4,000 rubles, forced labor of up to 120 hours, or up to fifteen days of arrest.
The next day after this meeting with law enforcement officers, a trial took place, during which Oleg Sh. was found guilty. The citizen did not reconcile and entered into a legal battle with the ‘system’. To begin with, he appealed against the second protocol ‘for dyeing’ – after all, this logically became the basis for an administrative case ‘for failure to comply with a legal requirement’. As a reason for withdrawing the document drawn up by the traffic police team consisting of inspectors GV Kuznetsova and AV Boets, the driver cited a number of arguments
In particular, he noted that the light transmission was measured with violations of methodology: only at one point of the glass and without taking into account weather conditions. Furthermore, the name of the device used to perform the test was not mentioned in the protocol. As a result, the February decision “for dyeing” was canceled.
After that interim victory, Shpigun began appealing the court’s ruling in the case of his “disobedience.” The fact that the “tinting” resolution was canceled under Part 3.1 of Art. 12.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses did not impress the judges of various authorities and they left everything in force. As a result, the director’s case was heard by the Supreme Court under number 48-AD23-39-K7. But even here no one came to meet him.
The court ruled that “the withdrawal of the resolution of the traffic police inspector… dated February 11, 2022 on bringing OI Shpigun to court under Part 3.1 of Article 12.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is not may lead to the withdrawal of judicial actions that have taken place, since this circumstance does not affect the qualification of Shpigun’s actions, does not meet the legal requirement of a police officer to bring the light transmission of car windows into compliance with paragraph 4.3 of the Annex No. 8 of the Technical Regulations of the Customs Union… according to which this percentage must be at least 70%.’
The penalty is therefore one hour. 1 tbsp. 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses remained in force against the background of the canceled sanction under Part 3.1 of Article 12.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
A curious story that finally reached the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation began on December 17, 2021. Then Oleg Sh., a resident of the Mercedes-Benz of the Chelyabinsk region, was stopped by the traffic police personnel. Tinting the side windows of the car turned out to be too strong and the motorist was fined 500 rubles under part 3.1 of art. 12.5 Code of Administrative Offenses. Everything would be fine, but at the same time the driver was asked to remove the film and restore the degree of light transmission from the windows of his vehicle to the original level.
And this document was “shot” when Shpigun’s Mercedes again attracted the attention of traffic police officers – on February 12, 2022 in the city of Troitsk, Chelyabinsk region. The employees discovered the shade again. And in addition to the next fine for it, the citizen received another – already on the basis of part 1 of art. 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, for failure to comply with a lawful request from a police officer. There is a threat of a fine of 2,000 to 4,000 rubles, forced labor of up to 120 hours, or up to fifteen days of arrest.
The next day after this meeting with law enforcement officers, a trial took place, during which Oleg Sh. was found guilty. The citizen did not reconcile and entered into a legal battle with the ‘system’. To begin with, he appealed against the second protocol ‘for dyeing’ – after all, this logically became the basis for an administrative case ‘for failure to comply with a legal requirement’. As a reason for withdrawing the document drawn up by the traffic police team consisting of inspectors GV Kuznetsova and AV Boets, the driver cited a number of arguments
In particular, he noted that the light transmission was measured with violations of methodology: only at one point of the glass and without taking into account weather conditions. Furthermore, the name of the device used to perform the test was not mentioned in the protocol. As a result, the February decision “for dyeing” was canceled.
After that interim victory, Shpigun began appealing the court’s ruling in the case of his “disobedience.” The fact that the “tinting” resolution was canceled under Part 3.1 of Art. 12.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses did not impress the judges of various authorities and they left everything in force. As a result, the director’s case was heard by the Supreme Court under number 48-AD23-39-K7. But even here no one met him halfway.
The court ruled that “the withdrawal of the resolution of the traffic police inspector… dated February 11, 2022 on bringing OI Shpigun to court under Part 3.1 of Article 12.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is not may lead to the withdrawal of judicial actions that have taken place, since this circumstance does not affect the qualification of Shpigun’s actions, does not meet the legal requirement of a police officer to bring the light transmission of car windows into compliance with paragraph 4.3 of the Annex No. 8 of the Technical Regulations of the Customs Union… according to which this percentage must be at least 70%.’
The penalty is therefore one hour. 1 tbsp. 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses remained in force against the background of the canceled sanction under Part 3.1 of Article 12.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
Source: Avto Vzglyad
Donald Salinas is an experienced automobile journalist and writer for Div Bracket. He brings his readers the latest news and developments from the world of automobiles, offering a unique and knowledgeable perspective on the latest trends and innovations in the automotive industry.
