Repressive nature of the application of administrative sanction provided by part 1 of article 20.25 of the CAO RF (failure to pay an administrative fine within the term provided by the CAO RF) and the need to take into account circumstances mitigating administrative punishment

In this article the authors have investigated the issue of the peculiarities of application of the sanction of article 20.25 of the CAO RF, presented statistical data indicating the dynamics of bringing to administrative responsibility under article 20.25 of the CAO RF for the last few years. In the course of writing this article the authors used universal dialectical, logical, statistical, formal-legal, hermeneutical methods of research. On the example of judicial practice the unfair and punitive nature of the sanction under consideration is shown. The authors present the positions of scientists regarding the goals of the legislator and law enforcer on the establishment and implementation of this administrative punishment, including: S.M. Zyryanov, P.P. Serkov, Z.I. Magomedova, A.V. Zhiltsov, F.K. Batenov and others. As a result of the study, the authors concluded that it is advisable to apply other (similar) legal means of influence on the offender who has not paid the fine on time, except for imposing a double fine. The present article is also a warning to legislators and law enforcers against potential injustice in the part of imposing a double fine. The authors' proposals contribute to the development of more balanced and fair mechanisms to influence the offender. The authors hope that their study will serve as a basis for reform in this area of law enforcement, contributing to the improvement of administrative legislation and judicial practice in favour of preventive over punitive policies.

sanction, fairness, legal remedies, legal technique, legal issues, administrative punishment, mitigating circumstances, failure to pay a fine, public interest, court practice