Changes in the procedure for conducting the administrative process and enforcing administrative penalties by enforcement authorities

Thus, the powers of an enforcement officer now include drawing up protocols not only for insulting an official of a state body (organization) while performing his official duties by a person not subordinate to him, but also for committing such acts in a public speech, printed or publicly displayed work, mass media, the Internet, and public telecommunication networks. The corresponding provisions are enshrined in Art. 24.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences.

Part 4 of Art. 25.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences stipulates that banks and non-bank credit and financial organizations will be held liable for non-fulfillment of payment requirements in the presence of funds, both in the accounts and in the electronic wallets of the debtor. Officials of enforcement bodies are also authorized to draw up protocols on such administrative offenses.

The signs of offenses are often identified during the commission of enforcement actions, the procedure for which is determined by the Instruction on Enforcement Proceedings, approved by the Resolution of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus dated April 7, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Instruction).

Since Part 2 of Art. 3.29 of the Procedural-Executive Code of Administrative Offences stipulates that officials of bodies conducting administrative proceedings are vested with the authority to draw up protocols on administrative offenses by a decision of the relevant state body, the preamble of the aforementioned Resolution has been supplemented by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus with a reference to this norm of the Procedural-Executive Code of Administrative Offences since March 1, 2021.

Art. 17.3 of the Procedural-Executive Code of Administrative Offences and clause 251 of the Instruction (as amended, effective from March 1, 2021) enshrine coordinated provisions on the deadlines for submitting a resolution on imposing an administrative penalty in the form of a fine for enforcement. In cases where such a penalty is applied by the court, the corresponding resolution is sent to the enforcement body after the expiration of the period for voluntary payment of the fine.

Bodies conducting

administrative proceedings, who issued the ruling imposing the specified penalty (other than a court), have the right to act in the same way within 3 months after the ruling takes legal effect. In addition, they may send a copy of such ruling to the individual's known place of income receipt or collect the necessary amount from the accounts (electronic wallets) of an individual entrepreneur or legal entity. If the latter two options prove unsuccessful, the ruling on imposing an administrative fine may also be sent to the enforcement authority within 3 months. This period is calculated, respectively, from the date of return by the organization paying income to the individual, of a copy of the specified ruling and the withdrawal of the payment order issued on the basis of such ruling from the automated information system for the enforcement of monetary obligations.

Upon the application of a bailiff, as well as upon the application of participants in the administrative proceedings or on the initiative of the judge or the body conducting the administrative proceedings, who issued the ruling in a case of an administrative offense, clerical errors, misprints, and arithmetic errors may be corrected therein after it takes legal effect (without changing the content of the ruling).

To eliminate the existing conflicts, Part 2 of Article 14.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and Procedure (PIKoAP) enshrines the right of a bailiff to terminate the enforcement of administrative penalties in the form of a fine, confiscation, or recovery of costs by issuing a corresponding ruling in the manner and under the conditions determined by the legislation on enforcement proceedings. Therefore, in paragraph 272 of the Instructions, since March 1, 2021, the reference has been retained only to Article 52 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Enforcement Proceedings," which contains the grounds for terminating enforcement proceedings.

In addition, the PIKoAP now stipulates that a judge or an official of the body conducting the administrative proceedings, who issued the ruling, will not be able to control the enforcement of the ruling on imposing an administrative penalty by the enforcement authorities.

Thus, to