On 14 November 2025 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted Judgement No.38-П in accordance with Article 47.1 of the Federal Constitutional Law «On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation». The case on the review of constitutionality of Article 12.24 (part 1), Article 24.5 (item 7 of part 1) of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and Article 264 (part 3) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was considered in connection with a request of Ivanovskiy District Court of the Ivanovskaya Oblast.Factual background
In February 2024, citizen I., while driving a bus on the Ivanovo-Kokhma highway, violated traffic regulations by entering the oncoming lane and colliding with a passenger car, which then collided with another vehicle. As a result, one of the drivers died from injuries, and the other was harmed. For this accident, the bus driver was held administratively liable under Article 12.24 (part 1) of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. A criminal case was subsequently opened against him under Article 264 (part 3) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The Ivanovo District Court of the Ivanovo Region, where citizen I. appealed the decision of the justice of the peace to hold him administratively liable, ruled that the applicant was being charged for violating the same traffic regulations, committed at the same time, but with different consequences. Arguing that the contested provisions conflict with the constitutional principle non bis in idem the court suspended the proceedings and filed a request with the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Position of the Court
Liability regulation in the area of road traffic, based on the inherent specifications of vehicles as a source of increased danger and the associated risks, should ensure proportionate protection of such priority constitutional values as human life and health.
When introducing the criminal liability, federal legislator shall be obligated to avoid excessive reliance on criminal repression and is authorised to resort to it for the purpose of adequate legal protection of the constitutionally significant values, particularly in the cases where a violation of the traffic regulations or the vehicle use rules negligently results in death.
A systematic analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation shows that the same actions (omissions) of the same person can constitute elements of different offenses. Not every violation of traffic regulations or vehicle use rules that constitutes an offense necessarily entails only administrative or only criminal liability. At least, when the same violation of the specified rules is caused by the same actions (omissions), this may, given the severity and degree of the consequences, lead to administrative and criminal liability. This would not conflict with the principle of fairness or violate the non bis in idem princilpe.
The contested provisions of the Criminal and Administrative Offenses Codes describe the different offenses. They share a common characteristic – a violation of the traffic regulations or the vehicle use rules – but they infringe different legally protected interests (health versus life), entail different consequences (death versus harm to health), and are not related to each other as part and whole, and therefore one offense cannot absorb the other. Therefore, the administrative offense and the crime provided for by these provisions cannot be considered the same unlawful act.
Accordingly, the administrative offense case in this instance cannot be dismissed pursuant to Article 24.5 (item 7 of part 1) of the Code of Administrative Offenses simply because a decision to initiate criminal proceedings has been issued on the same facts. Otherwise, termination of administrative case would create significant difficulties for the person who suffered minor bodily harm in proving this fact in court. If a person lacks the status of a victim in an administrative offense case, they are not deprived of the opportunity to seek compensation for the harm by filing a civil claim within the initiated criminal case. However, termination of the administrative case due to the initiation of a criminal case does not preclude the subsequent termination of the criminal case (due to non-rehabilitating circumstances), which would lead to the dismissal of such civil claim without consideration, but the plaintiff retains the right to file a civil claim (in civil court procedure). Such “double” termination of proceedings would complicate the recovery of damages for the individual and contradict the state’s constitutional obligations to recognise, respect, and protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, as well as to ensure their access to justice and compensation for damages.
The contested provisions, in their interrelationship do not contradict the Constitution, in the sense identified by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Press Service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation