The court studied the story that took place about a year ago on the 94th kilometer of the Moscow ring road. Subsequently, the minibus Mercedes-Benz Viano, driven by the plaintiff, collided with another car. The drivers apparently talked, decided something and broke up. The file does not say how the traffic police found out about the accident. However, the driver of the “bus” was held liable for leaving the scene of the accident under Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. It threatens with deprivation of “rights” for a maximum of 1.5 years. The motorist claimed that since there was no damage to the car of the second participant in the accident, and since only his car was damaged, he had every right to proceed without formalizing the road accident.

However, the courts of various authorities disregarded this argument and deprived the citizen of the VU. The case then went to court. This time, the court drew attention to the fact that there is no evidence in the case confirming damage to the car of the second participant in the accident. That is, the legal position of the “deprived” was in no way refuted. On this basis, the rulings of all lower courts were overturned by the cassation appeal and the case forwarded for reconsideration – to look for traces of damage from that accident to the car of the second rescuer. In practice, this means the closure of the procedure for hiding the scene of an accident – due to the expiry of the procedural deadlines. In this case, the “rights” are automatically returned to the claimant.

The court studied the story that took place about a year ago on the 94th kilometer of the Moscow ring road. Subsequently, the minibus Mercedes-Benz Viano, driven by the plaintiff, collided with another car. The drivers apparently talked, decided something and broke up. The file does not say how the traffic police found out about the accident. However, the driver of the “bus” was held liable for leaving the scene of the accident under Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. It threatens with deprivation of “rights” for a maximum of 1.5 years. The motorist claimed that since there was no damage to the car of the second participant in the accident, and since only his car was damaged, he had every right to proceed without formalizing the road accident.

However, the courts of various authorities disregarded this argument and deprived the citizen of the VU. The case then went to court. This time, the court drew attention to the fact that there is no evidence in the case confirming damage to the car of the second participant in the accident. That is, the legal position of the “deprived” was in no way refuted. On this basis, the rulings of all lower courts were overturned by the cassation appeal and the case forwarded for reconsideration – to look for traces of damage from that accident to the car of the second rescuer. In practice, this means the closure of the procedure for hiding the scene of an accident – due to the expiry of the procedural deadlines. In this case, the “rights” are automatically returned to the claimant.