Article 12.13 h 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation comments. How to appeal a violation of part 2. Article 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

Entered into force on 01.01.2012 color=red>

Failure to comply with the requirements of the Rules traffic give way to a vehicle enjoying the priority right to pass through intersections -

entails the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of

1000 rubles.

(As amended by Federal Law No. 69-FZ dated April 21, 2011) size=-1>

  –  Rules of the road (SDA):

Regulated intersections

13.3. With a yellow flashing signal, non-working traffic lights or the absence of a traffic controller, the intersection is considered unregulated, and drivers are required to follow the rules for driving through unregulated intersections and priority signs installed at the intersection.

13.4. When turning left or making a U-turn at a green traffic light, the driver of a trackless vehicle is obliged to give way to vehicles moving straight and to the right from the opposite direction. Tram drivers should be guided by the same rule among themselves.

13.5. When driving in the direction of the arrow switched on in the additional section at the same time as the yellow or red traffic light, the driver must give way to vehicles moving from other directions.

13.6. If the signals of a traffic light or a traffic controller allow the movement of a tram and trackless vehicles at the same time, then the tram has an advantage regardless of the direction of its movement. However, when moving in the direction of the arrow switched on in the additional section at the same time as the red or yellow traffic light, the tram must give way to vehicles moving from other directions.

13.8. When the permissive signal of the traffic light is turned on, the driver is obliged to give way to vehicles completing the movement through the intersection, and to pedestrians who have not completed the crossing of the carriageway of this direction.

Unregulated intersections

13.9. At the intersection of unequal roads, the driver of a vehicle moving along a secondary road must give way to vehicles approaching along the main road, regardless of the direction of their further movement. At such intersections, the tram has an advantage over trackless ones. vehicles moving in the same or opposite direction on an equivalent road, regardless of the direction of its movement.

13.10. In the event that the main road changes direction at an intersection, drivers moving along main road, should be guided by the rules for passing the intersections of equivalent roads. The same rules should be followed by drivers moving on secondary roads.

13.11. At the intersection of equivalent roads, the driver of a trackless vehicle must give way to vehicles approaching from the right. Tram drivers should be guided by the same rule among themselves. At such intersections, the tram has an advantage over trackless vehicles, regardless of the direction of its movement.

13.12. When turning left or making a U-turn, the driver of a trackless vehicle is obliged to give way to vehicles moving straight or to the right on an equivalent road from the opposite direction. Tram drivers should be guided by the same rule among themselves.

13.13. If the driver cannot determine the presence of a road surface (darkness, mud, snow, etc.), and there are no priority signs, he must assume that he is on a secondary road.

5) the head of the state traffic safety inspectorate, his deputy, the commander of the regiment (battalion, company) of the road patrol service, his deputy ...

6) employees of the State Road Safety Inspectorate with a special rank ...

1. Driving to an intersection or crossing a carriageway in the event of a traffic jam that forced the driver to stop, creating an obstacle to the movement of vehicles in the transverse direction, -

shall entail a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one hundred roubles.

2. Failure to comply with the requirement of the Rules of the Road to give way to a vehicle enjoying the priority right to pass through intersections, -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one hundred to two hundred roubles.

(in ed. federal law dated 22.06.2007 N 116-FZ)

Commentary on article 12.13

1. In accordance with the Rules of the Road, an intersection is understood as a place of intersection, junction or branching of roads at the same level, limited by imaginary lines connecting, respectively, the beginnings of the curvature of the carriageways, which are the most distant from the center of the intersection. Exits from adjacent territories are not considered intersections.

According to Art. 2 of the Federal Law of December 10, 1995 N 196-ФЗ “On Road Safety”, as well as clause 1.2 of the Rules of the Road, a road is understood as a strip of land equipped or adapted and used for the movement of vehicles or the surface of an artificial structure. The road includes one or more carriageways, as well as tram tracks, sidewalks, shoulders and dividing lanes, if any. According to the rules of the road carriageway is a road element intended for off-rail vehicles.

According to clause 13.3 of the Rules of the Road, an intersection where the order of movement is determined by traffic lights or a traffic controller is considered regulated.

With a yellow flashing signal, non-working traffic lights or the absence of a traffic controller, the intersection is considered unregulated and drivers must follow the rules for driving through unregulated intersections and priority signs installed at the intersection.

The procedure for passing through regulated, unregulated intersections is defined, respectively, in paragraphs 13.4 - 13.8, 13.9 - 13.13 of the Rules of the Road (paragraph 13.9 as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 25, 2003 N 595).

Within the meaning of part 1 of the commented article, the forced stop of the vehicle should be distinguished from its intentional stop (see paragraph 2 of the commentary to article 12.10).

2. The driver of a vehicle moving, resuming movement, carrying out any maneuver at an intersection of a vehicle, forcing the driver of a vehicle exercising the right to priority passage through an intersection to change direction or speed, commits an administrative offense under part 2 of the commented article.

In accordance with paragraphs 13.9 - 13.11 of the Rules of the Road at the intersection of unequal roads, the driver of a vehicle moving along a secondary road must give way to vehicles approaching along the main road, regardless of the direction of their further movement.

In the case when the main road changes direction at an intersection, drivers moving along the main road must be guided by the rules for passing the intersections of equivalent roads. The same rules should be followed by drivers moving on secondary roads.

At the intersection of equivalent roads, the driver of a trackless vehicle must give way to vehicles approaching from the right. Tram drivers should be guided by the same rule among themselves.

At such intersections, the tram has an advantage over trackless vehicles, regardless of the direction of its movement.

3. On the consideration of cases on administrative offenses provided for in the commented article, see paragraph 5 of the commentary to Art. 12.12.

4. On the collection of an administrative fine in cases provided for in Part 1 of the article in question, see paragraph 7 of the commentary to Art. 12.1.

You need to prepare an objection to the administrative protocol, based on the following.

In accordance with Article 24.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the tasks
proceedings in cases of administrative offenses are
comprehensive, complete, objective and timely clarification of circumstances
each case, its resolution in accordance with the law, enforcement
decision, as well as identifying the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of administrative offenses.

By virtue of clause 13 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 24, 2005 N 5 “On Certain Issues
arising from the courts in the application of the Code Russian Federation about
administrative offenses" when considering cases of administrative
offences, as well as complaints against rulings or decisions in cases of
administrative offenses, the judge must proceed from the principle of administrative responsibility enshrined in Article 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - the presumption of innocence of the person against whom the proceedings are carried out. The implementation of this principle lies in the fact that a person brought to administrative responsibility is not obliged to prove his innocence, guilt in committing an administrative offense is established by judges, bodies, officials authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses. irremovable doubts about
the guilt of the person brought to administrative responsibility must
be interpreted in favor of that person.

According to part 2, 3, article 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the presumption of innocence imposes the obligation to prove the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility in accordance with the procedure established by the Code to persons authorized to initiate proceedings in cases of administrative offenses.

In accordance with part 1 of article 2.1 and article 2.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, an illegal, guilty action is recognized as an administrative offense
(inaction) of a physical or legal entity for which this Code or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses establishes administrative liability. Guilt is one of the main signs of an administrative offense. It characterizes the mental attitude of the person who committed it to the wrongfulness of his actions (inaction) and their consequences. Guilt characterizes the subjective side of the composition of an administrative offense. It can be in the form of intent and negligence.

Since the presence of guilt is a prerequisite for bringing to administrative responsibility, the relevant evidence must be contained in the case file. When the objective side of an administrative offense includes elements, the presence of which must be confirmed by certain evidence, such evidence must also be present in the case file at the time of its receipt by the court. The fact of admitting guilt by signing an accident report does not indicate the presence of actual guilt, since it is necessary to clarify the sanity of the person who committed the accident, as well as the level of his condition, which allows or does not allow an objective assessment of the surrounding reality.

In accordance with Part 4 of Article 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, irremovable doubts about the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility are interpreted in favor of this person.

In accordance with Part.2 Article. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, failure to comply with the requirement of the Rules of the Road to give way to a vehicle that has the priority right to pass intersections, entails the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one hundred to two hundred rubles.

According to clause 1.2 of the Rules of the Road, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 23, 1993 No. 1090, advantage (priority) is understood as the right to priority movement in the intended direction in relation to other traffic participants.
According to clause 1.3 of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation, road users are required to know and comply with the requirements of the Rules, traffic lights, signs and markings that apply to them, as well as follow the orders of traffic controllers acting within the rights granted to them and regulating traffic with established signals.

• Encyclopedia of judicial practice. Administrative offenses in the field of traffic. Violation of the rules for crossing intersections (Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses)
• 1. The legislator does not specify the location of the traffic jam that forced the driver to stop, creating an obstacle for the movement of vehicles in the transverse direction
• 2. To qualify the actions of a person under Part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to establish whether another vehicle used the priority right to pass the intersection, whether an obstacle was created for it
• 3. Composition of the offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is formal and is considered completed from the moment of violation of the requirements of the Rules of the Road to give way, regardless of the onset of any consequences due to such a violation
• 4. The subjective side of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12. 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, characterized by intent or negligence
• 5. Bringing a person to administrative responsibility under Art. 12.24, 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in connection with the same violation of the Rules of the road is not allowed
• 6. It is allowed to requalify the actions of a person from Part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for Part 1 of Art. 12.13 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation
• 7. To establish the guilt of a person in committing an administrative offense, provided for in part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, an autotechnical examination is not required
• 8. When considering the case of an administrative offense, under Part. 2 Article. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the assessment of the actions of a driver moving along the main road and having an advantage in traffic is not given
• 9. A driver who has entered the street in violation of the “No Entry” traffic sign does not have the right of way, so the other driver is not obliged to give way to him

Encyclopedia judicial practice
Administrative offenses in the field of traffic. Violation of the rules for crossing intersections
(Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses)

1. The legislator does not specify the location of the traffic jam that forced the driver to stop, creating an obstacle for the movement of vehicles in the transverse direction

The location of the traffic accident not at the intersection itself, but at the exit from it also does not affect the qualification of the actions [full name] under Part 1 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, since a traffic jam often occurs not at the intersection itself, but directly behind it, therefore, the driver of the vehicle must predict a possible resolution of the situation and not allow the exit to the intersection in the event of a traffic jam, which can create an obstacle to the movement of vehicles in the transverse direction.

2. To qualify the actions of a person under Part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to establish whether another vehicle used the priority right to pass the intersection, whether an obstacle was created for it

To qualify the actions of a person under Part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to establish whether another vehicle used the priority right to travel through the intersection.

To hold the driver liable under Part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for violation of clause 13.9 of the SDA of the Russian Federation, unconditional confirmation is required that a car moving along the main road was obstructed and forced to change direction or speed, and that this circumstance took place at the intersection of unequal roads.

3. Composition of the offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is formal and is considered completed from the moment of violation of the requirements of the Rules of the Road to give way, regardless of the onset of any consequences due to such a violation

The composition of the committed [full name] offense is formal. The objective side is expressed in non-compliance with the requirements of the Rules of the Road to give way to a vehicle that has the right of way, and the consequences of such non-compliance (collision of vehicles, etc.) are not its sign.

The composition of the administrative offense, under Part. 2 Article. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, is formal.

4. The subjective side of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, characterized by intent or negligence

Bringing a person to administrative responsibility under Art. 12.24, 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in connection with the same violation of the Rules of the Road does not meet the requirements of paragraph 7 of part 1 of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation [_].

By the decision of the judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar dated October 23, 2009, upheld by the decision of the judge of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated January 26, 2010, G. was found guilty of an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 12.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and subjected to administrative punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of one and a half years. By decision of the Deputy Chairman of the Krasnodar Regional Court, these court decisions were left unchanged.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having considered G.'s complaint against the judicial decisions that had taken place, pointed out the following.

Compositions of administrative offenses under Part 2 of Art. 12.13 and part 1 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, have a single generic object, the sanction of part 1 of this article provides for a similar type and size administrative punishment. The jurisdiction of the consideration of this case does not change as a result of a change in the qualifications of the actions committed by [full name].

Therefore, the re-qualification of the actions of [full name] from Part 2 of Art. 12.13 at part 1 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is consistent with the requirements of paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and paragraph 20 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 24, 2005 N 5 "On some issues that arise with the courts when applying the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses."

7. To establish the guilt of a person in committing an administrative offense, provided for in part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, an autotechnical examination is not required

The arguments of the complaint that in order to establish all the circumstances in the case it is necessary to appoint an autotechnical examination are not taken into account, since there is no need for special knowledge in the field of automotive technology to establish [full name]'s guilt in committing an administrative offense under part 2 of article 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

8. When considering the case of an administrative offense, under Part. 2 Article. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the assessment of the actions of a driver moving along the main road and having an advantage in traffic is not given

The question of a causal relationship between a violation by a person of the Rules of the Road and the infliction of material damage resulting from a traffic accident, when considering an administrative offense case [provided for in Part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation] (complaints against a decision in a case of an administrative offense) is not resolved, just as it is not established that another participant in the road accident was at fault in the collision.

Thus, in this case, the actions of [FULL NAME1] are important, their compliance with the requirements of the Rules of the Road, in this regard, the assessment of the actions of the driver [FULL NAME2], moving along the main road and having the advantage in traffic, is not given, the degree of guilt of the participants in the road transport incidents in a collision is not defined.

The issue of establishing the guilt of the second participant in the accident cannot be the subject of consideration of this case [on an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation], since, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 30.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a decision can be appealed in a case of an administrative offense or in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 28.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the decision to refuse to initiate proceedings on an administrative offense.

The composition of the imputed [full name] administrative offense does not imply the need to establish the fact of a traffic accident and its perpetrators, otherwise it would mean going beyond the disposition of Part 2 of Art. 12.13

9. The driver who went out into the street in violation road sign"No entry", does not have the right of way, so the other driver is not obliged to give way to him

The materials of the case allow us to conclude that at the time of the circumstances relating to the event imputed [FULL NAME1] administrative offense, [st. 1] was not put into operation, the entrance to it from [st. 2] was banned. In the current traffic situation, the driver of the car [FULL NAME2], moving along [st. 1]. 3], there was no obligation to give way to him.

For leaving [st. 1] in violation of the requirements of the road sign 3.1 "Entry is prohibited" of Appendix No. 1 to the Rules of the Road [FULL NAME2] was brought to administrative responsibility by the decision of the inspector, provided for by Part 1 of Article 12.16 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Under the circumstances, the conclusion officials and the courts on the violation of [FULL NAME1] clause 13.11 of the Rules of the Road and the presence in his actions of the objective side of the composition of an administrative offense, provided for by part 2 of article 12.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, is unreasonable.