DIFFERENTIATION OF ADMISSION TO ADMINISTRATIVE AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY AS A LEGAL FACT AND AS A LEGAL PROCEDURE

The article analyzes the reasons for the elimination the meaning of the procedure of bringing to justice public liability with its actual consequence, which is quite often identified, from the common law consciousness. Unfortunately, existing legislation facilitates such a mischange of concepts by establishing the initiation of prosecution in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure as a separate procedural action — bringing charges. This legislative provision may, in terminology and in fact, lead to the erroneous finding that the person charged has been held criminally liable. The misconception is that prosecution as a procedural step in a criminal case is identified with its synonym — criminal prosecution in the form of a legal fact — a court conviction. However, no less wide-spread is the second kind of error, which is more common in specialists and more clearly manifested in administrative proceedings. The error is allowed in the context of the limitation period of administrative liability. There is a procedural requirement for administrative jurisdictions that do not have the power to decide the case. According to this requirement, they must, within a limited time from the moment of committing the offense, complete the procedure of finding out his circumstances and record them procedurally. Fulfilling this requirement means timely drafting of a report on an administrative offense and referral of materials to court. According to the author, at the moment of submission of materials to court within the limitation period, the procedure of administrative liability is completed and the limitation period is interrupted. This obliges the court to hear the merits of the case, regardless of how long the trial process will take.