RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

of July 13, 2010 No. 15-P

On the case of check of constitutionality of provisions of part one of article 188 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, part 4 of Article 4. 5, parts 1 of Article 16.2 and part 2 of article 27.11 of the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences in connection with claims of citizens V. V. Batalov, L. N. Valuyeva, Z. Ya. Ganiyeva, O. A. Krasna and I. V. Epova

Constitutional court of the Russian Federation as a part of the chairman - the judge N. V. Seleznyov, judges Yu. M. Danilov, L. M. Zharkova, G. A. Zhilin, V. D. Zorkin, S. M. Kazantsev, M. I. Kleandrov, A. N. Kokotov, N. V. Melnikov,

with participation of the citizen V. V. Batalov and his predstavitelyaadvokat of V. V. Seryogin, the representative citizen L. N. Valuyeva - the lawyer N. N. Ptashkina, the permanent representative of the State Duma in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation A. N. Kharitonov, the representative of the Federation Council - the doctor of jurisprudence E. V. Vinogradova,

being guided by Article 125 (part 4) Constitutions of the Russian Federation, Item 3 parts one, parts three and the fourth Article 3, Item 3 parts two of Article 22, Articles 36, 74, 86, 96, 97 and 99 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation",

considered case on check of constitutionality of provisions of part one of article 188 UK of the Russian Federation, part 4 of Article 4 in open session. 5, parts 1 of Article 16.2 and part 2 of the article 27.11 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

Reason for consideration of the case were claims of citizens V. V. Batalov, L. N. Valuyeva, Z. Ya. Ganiyeva, O. A. Krasna and I. V. Epova. The basis to consideration of the case was the found uncertainty in question of whether there correspond the Constitutions of the Russian Federation disputed by applicants of legislative provision.

As all claims concern the same subject, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, being guided by article 48 of the Federal constitutional Law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", connected cases on these claims in one production.

Having heard the message of the judge-speaker N. V. Melnikov, explanation of agents of the parties, speeches of the representatives invited in meeting: from the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation - V. V. Karpova, from the Federal Customs Service - A. A. Gavrilova, having researched the submitted documents and other materials, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation established:

1. Applicants on this case - citizens V. V. Batalov, L. N. Valuyeva, Z. Ya. Ganiyeva, O. A. Krasna and I. V. Epov dispute constitutionality of part one of article 188 UK of the Russian Federation determining smuggling as the movement in large size through customs border of the Russian Federation of goods or other objects made in addition to or with concealment from customs control or with fraudulent use of documents or means of customs identification or integrated to non declaration or doubtful declaring.

Besides, the citizen L. N. Valuyeva disputes constitutionality of following provisions of the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences: parts 4 of Article 4. 5, fixing the rule of calculation of prescriptive limits of administrative prosecution in relation to refusal cases in initiation of legal proceedings or its terminations, but in the presence in actions of person of signs of administrative offense; parts 1 of Article 16. 2, to the established form providing the administrative responsibility for non declaration on (oral, written or electronic) goods in case of their movement through customs border of the Russian Federation; parts 2 of Article 27. 11, the cost of the withdrawn things determining for the purposes of ensuring proceeedings about administrative offense evaluation procedure - based on the state regulated prices if those are established, in other cases based on market value, and if necessary based on the expert opinion.

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info