The results of the fight against “quarantine violators”

Quarantine has been going on in Ukraine for almost two months, while the restrictive measures taken in the fight against COVID-19 caused serious indignation among both human rights activists and the townsfolk, who, not without reason, suspected that these measures violated the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine. So, enough time has passed to analyze the judicial practice on bringing to administrative responsibility for violation of quarantine rules, and to answer the question: how did the judicial system and law enforcement systems react to new challenges?

For a better representativeness of the study, specialists of the legal agency “AKTIV” analyzed 100 decisions of local courts of all regions of Ukraine, placed in the Unified Register of Court Decisions from 04/22/2020 to 04/30/2020, that is, during the period of already established judicial practice, regarding bringing responsibility for violating quarantine rules.

The subject of the cases in which the reviewed decisions were issued was the bringing of individuals to administrative responsibility in accordance with Art. 43³ of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine. The article provides for liability from UAH 17,000 to 34,000. for violation of quarantine rules, sanitary and hygienic and sanitary and anti-epidemic standards provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On the protection of the population from infectious diseases” and other legislative acts.

The results turned out to be somewhat predictable for specialists, but still very interesting.

Conventionally, all cases can be divided into two large groups: the first is cases regarding subjects of trade and economic activity, the second – regarding ordinary citizens who, contrary to the rather controversial, from a legal point of view, Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, visited parks, squares and playgrounds, and were also in public places without masks. A few more resolutions were adopted regarding bringing to responsibility for holding mass events. They are also of some interest, and we will talk about them later.

Let us note right away: the common result for all groups of cases is the overall result, which was far from in favor of the law enforcement agencies that sent the protocols drawn up by their employees to the courts.

So, out of 100 rulings:

• in the vast majority of cases – in the 81st court decided to terminate the proceedings due to the absence of an administrative offense;
• in 8 cases, the court sent the materials for revision (which actually means there is no prospect of bringing to administrative responsibility);
• in 6 cases, the court released the perpetrators from administrative responsibility and limited themselves to a verbal warning, due to the insignificance of the violation;
• and only 5 times the participants in the cases were found guilty and fined 17 and 34 (the only case) thousand hryvnias.

Quite indicative is the fact that from the group of ordinary citizens, on whom protocols were drawn up for being in parks, squares and without masks, he was brought to administrative responsibility …. 1 (one) person.

The rest of the really fined persons are business entities and administratively responsible persons who traded and received citizens, ignoring the introduction of quarantine measures. And, it would be quite appropriate to add, they did not bother to defend themselves when considering the case in court.

The addition is very appropriate, since practice has shown that almost any attempt to defend oneself in court in this category of cases is doomed to success.

Regulations

In almost all Resolutions that determined the absence of an administrative offense, the courts emphasized the extremely low level of evidence provided by law enforcement agencies. On the one hand, this is a depressing fact, since it testifies to the immortality of the “cane” system in law enforcement agencies (“chopped up” protocols, sent to court, and at least the grass does not grow there). On the other hand, it is encouraging, because it demonstrates the fact that the courts did not succumb to conjuncture and general psychosis, and acted from the standpoint of legality and respect for the rights of citizens. At least in this category of cases.

The legal agency “AKTIV” continues to monitor the development of the practice of considering this category of cases of administrative offenses, and will continue a series of publications on this topic.

© Legal agency “AKTIV”, 2020.

Photo: press service of the Kyiv Police.