Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Administrative and municipal law
Reference:

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

Barkova Alina Vasil'evna

ORCID: 0000-0001-9470-3070

PhD in Law

Associate Professor, Department of Legal Regulation of Economic Activity, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

38 Shcherbakovskaya str., Moscow, 105187, Russia

rav6232551@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 
Chernyshenko Il'ya Gennad'evich

ORCID: 0000-0003-4066-8446

Student, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

38 Shcherbakovskaya str., Moscow, 105187, Russia

cheig@inbox.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0595.2024.3.68782

EDN:

HOMJVI

Received:

22-10-2023


Published:

30-06-2024


Abstract: 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.


Keywords:

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

This article is automatically translated.

Recently, there has been a tendency to increase the number of administrative cases considered for non-payment of fines under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. For example, 1,703,888 such cases were initiated and considered in 2020, and 2,010,948 cases were already filed in 2021 [9]. The increase in the number of administrative offense cases under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation can be explained by various factors, including economic conditions (economic instability in a market economy, financial difficulties in the financial situation of citizens and entrepreneurs), and tightening control by government agencies.

Article 4.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (hereinafter – the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) provides mitigating circumstances that are taken into account when assigning an administrative punishment to a person, both list circumstances and an indication by the legislator of other specific circumstances that can also be recognized as mitigating (i.e. an open list), depending on the discretion of the official (body) considering the case, and the conditions of a particular case.

The importance of mitigating circumstances in sentencing is obvious: they are aimed at reducing the size of the sanction provided for in the article of the special part of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

For example, in case No. A60-235/2022 of 02/15/2022 on violation of currency legislation by an employer, expressed in the payment of wages to non-residents in cash (Part 1 of Article 15.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region recognized as a mitigating circumstance inconsistency with the interests of the person being prosecuted, the punitive nature of liability for this offense [Decision Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated 02/15/2022 in case No. A60-235/2022]. The Court concluded that the administrative sanction applied by the tax authority to the offender is disproportionate and restricts his rights to freedom of economic activity and private property. In view of the need to "harmonize" the interests of the state and the offender, as well as in view of the fact that bringing to responsibility for this composition already carries a preventive function, the court recognized the imposed sanction as unjustifiably punitive, not corresponding to the severity of the offense and the degree of guilt. In order to impose a fair and proportionate punishment, the court, individualizing the punishment, decided to reduce the fine by half.

This example demonstrates the importance of law enforcement officers taking into account circumstances that may mitigate the responsibility of the perpetrator. Instead of considering bringing to administrative responsibility as a punitive mechanism, law enforcement officers should impose a fair punishment, taking into account various circumstances that may affect the final decision on an administrative offense case, to ensure the application of a more balanced and effective sanction.

Further, reflecting on the possible legal consequences, for example, in case of non–payment of an administrative fine reduced by half within a period determined by administrative legislation, there is again a clash of "punitive interest", i.e. the desire to punish the offender for the offense committed, and "preventive interest", whose task is to prevent future violations and protect public interests, but such a clash has the place is no longer between the law enforcement officer and the offender, but between the legislator and the offender.

Thus, Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation establishes administrative punishment in the form of twice the amount of the previously imposed administrative fine in case of its involuntary payment within the time allotted by the legislator. According to the authors of this article, a twofold increase in the amount of the fine for involuntary payment may devalue the previously reduced penalty by half, namely:

1) doubling its size will lead to a significant change in the amount that the violator must pay: in addition to the doubled amount, the offender will also have to pay the enforcement fee in case of collection of a fine by bailiffs - this will be a financially (financially) burdened position for him;

2) the application of such administrative punishment will be unfair, unjustified, inappropriate and punitive in relation to the violator;

3) there will be no sense of previously taken into account mitigating circumstances for what this person has done.

Maximov I.V. [8] in his own monograph (already in 2009) states the liberalization of punitive coercive measures in administrative legislation. At the same time, it is worth noting that a punitive policy that strengthens the repressive qualities of an administrative measure of responsibility will not correspond to the interests and tasks facing the state regarding the use of means of state-governmental coercion. The strengthening of such a punitive policy will affect the formation of a negative attitude of the offender towards the justice system and increase the likelihood of a repeat of such offenses.

Batenov F.K. [1] writes about the lack of expediency and validity of the application of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation on the example of bringing to administrative responsibility for violations in the field of road safety. The idea of Batenov F.K. and the authors of this article is identical – doubling the amount of the fine carries only a negative consequence in the form of significant financial losses, especially for officials and legal entities.

Serkov P.P. [10], investigating administrative punishment in the form of a twofold increase in the fine for its involuntary payment, back in 2012 rightly called it "the potential for administrative repression without special need." Indeed, it is more rational to use other legal instruments that create conditions for the disadvantage of evading the execution of acts on the imposition of administrative fines.

According to Zhiltsov A.V. [4], the fiscal interest of the state, pursued within the framework of the application of administrative punishment provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, is a secondary task in relation to the need to prevent the formation of an irresponsible attitude of citizens to the performance of their duties and to counteract the strengthening of a sense of impunity. The author also proposes to replace in the construction of the article the "double" payment of a fine with fixed amounts of administrative sanction (upper and lower limits), which also deserves attention, fully corresponds to the sign of individualization of punishment in each specific case and makes administrative punishment more fair and predictable.

Magomedova Z.I. [7] proposes to redact the structure of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. So, she justifies this by the fact that this norm is not individualized for each subject of an administrative offense separately, which leads to law enforcement problems and suggests highlighting the administrative responsibility of legal entities for this offense in a separate paragraph of the article. According to the authors of the article, it is necessary to individualize administrative responsibility for such an offense not only for legal entities, but also for all business entities. The authors of the article also propose that all subjects of administrative responsibility for this offense be exempted from paying a double fine if there is an indication in the initial decision (resolution) on bringing to administrative responsibility against the perpetrator of mitigating circumstances, the establishment of which led to a decrease in the amount of administrative sanctions by 1.5 or more times. The consolidation of such a legislative change will contribute to the predominance of the preventive policy of the state over the punitive one, the establishment of a balance between the state and the person being held accountable, in general, and ensuring proper and effective protection of state and public interests.

Zyryanov S.M. [5] raises a serious problem related to the inconsistency of Article 20.25 of the general part of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation when imposing such an administrative penalty against a legal entity. Thus, within the meaning of Part 1 of Article 2.10 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, legal entities are held legally liable if this is expressly provided for by the provisions of the article of the Special Part of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. However, in Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation there is no indication that a legal entity can be held accountable, and, according to S.M. Zyryanov, administrative penalties provided for above the specified article are typical and applicable only to individuals, not legal entities. The authors of this article agree with this opinion and consider this problem to be an indicator of the imperfection of the legislator's legal technique in this part, which leads to the fact that if a legal entity is held liable under Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, then such an element as a subject may simply be absent, therefore, there may not be an administrative offense.

In the Decision of the justice of the peace of the judicial district No. 6 of the Pervomaisky district of Izhevsk, Udmurt Republic dated August 12, 2016 in case No. 5-489/2016, the justice of the peace, considering an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, indicated that recognition of an administrative offense as insignificant in accordance with Article 2.9 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is the right of the court [6]. The court may recognize such an administrative offense as insignificant, and, therefore, release a person from administrative responsibility, limiting himself to an oral remark, subject to the following condition: the nature of the offense, the degree of its public danger and the damage caused imply an unambiguous conclusion about the insignificance of the committed administrative offense. It is implied that the inclusion of a reference to the provision of Article 2.9 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in the "line of defense" of a person brought to administrative responsibility under Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation may help this person achieve a more "mild" form of punishment, or challenge an already imposed administrative punishment if there are sufficient arguments confirming the insignificance of the violation.

Thus, in the opinion of the authors of this article, other legal instruments should be used when identifying the problem of non-payment or systematic non-payment of an administrative fine, for example: establishing a fixed amount of sanction; establishing the possibility of exemption from this type of punishment in case of mitigating circumstances when bringing to responsibility for the initial offense, the use of production security measures (as a guarantee execution of punishment), or the commission by the bailiff of executive actions outside the framework of the administrative and legal field. Making a decision (resolution) over and over again under Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation does not solve this problem of voluntary payment of an administrative fine, but, on the contrary, increases the burden on the staff of bailiffs, courts and often does not ensure the final receipt of the amount of the sanction to the budget.

References
1. Batenov, F.K. (2021). Separate features of administrative responsibility of legal entities and officials for offences in the field of road traffic. Administrative Law and Process, 4, 70-73.
2. Butaeva, E.M. (2021). Peculiarities of proving the composition under part 1 of article 20.25 of the CAO RF: analysis of procedural errors. Citizen and Law, 10, 27-38.
3. Dugenets, A.S., Kanunnikova N.G. (2023). Actual issues of bringing to administrative responsibility in the Russian Federation. Administrative Law and Process, 4, 27-29.
4. Zhiltsov, A. V. (2010). On the possibility of individualisation of punishment for failure to pay an administrative fine within the term established by law. Law and Law, 3, 62-64.
5. Zyryanov, S.M. (2020). Problems of constructing the structures of administrative offences in the articles of the Especial part of CAO RF. Journal of Russian law, 8, 105-126.
6. Kiryanova, O.V. (2022). Recognition of an administrative offence of low significance: problems of theory and practice. State power and local self-government, 3, 49-53.
7. Magomedova, Z.I. (2016). Issues arising for justices of the peace in the consideration of administrative cases under part 1 of article 20.25 of the CAO RF. Justice of the peace, 1, 35-40.
8. Maximov, I.V. (2009). Administrative penalties. Russia, Moscow: Norma.
9. Medvedev, V.N. (2021). Bringing to responsibility for non-payment of an administrative fine: problems of law enforcement. Regional and municipal management: issues of politics, economics and law, 2(24), 104.
10. Serkov, P.P. (2012). Administrative responsibility in Russian law: modern comprehension and new approaches. Russia, Moscow: Norma, Infra-M.
11. Chepurnykh, D.A. (2013). Improvement of the process of production on cases of administrative offences related to non-payment of administrative fines by road traffic sections. Education. Science. Scientific personnel, 4, 75-80.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the article submitted for review is, as its name implies, the repressive nature of the application of the administrative sanction provided for in Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. The name of the work needs to be clarified - for the convenience of readers, it is necessary to indicate in the title the name of this article of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, the article deals only with part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Code (failure to pay an administrative fine within the time limit provided for by the Administrative Code). Thus, the actual boundaries of the study have already been stated by the authors. The methodology of the research is not disclosed in the text of the article, but it is obvious that scientists used universal dialectical, logical, statistical, formal-legal, hermeneutic research methods. The relevance of the research topic chosen by the authors is justified as follows: "Recently, there has been a tendency to increase the number of administrative cases considered for non-payment of fines under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. For example, in 2020 1,703,888 such cases were initiated and considered, in 2021 2,010,948 cases have already been initiated [7]. The increase in the number of administrative offense cases under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation can be explained by various factors, including economic conditions (economic instability in a market economy, financial difficulties in the financial situation of citizens and entrepreneurs), and tightening control by government agencies." Additionally, scientists need to list the names of leading specialists who have been engaged in the study of the problems raised in the article, as well as reveal the degree of their study. The scientific novelty of the work is manifested in a number of conclusions and proposals of scientists: "So, Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation establishes administrative punishment in the form of twice the amount of the previously imposed administrative fine in case of involuntary payment within the time allotted by the legislator. According to the authors of this article, a twofold increase in the amount of the fine for involuntary payment may devalue the previously reduced penalty by half, namely: 1) doubling its size will lead to a significant change in the amount that the violator must pay: in addition to the doubled amount, the offender will also have to pay the enforcement fee in case the fine is collected by bailiffs, - this will be a materially (financially) burdened position for him; 2) the application of such administrative punishment will be unfair, unjustified, inexpedient and punitive in nature against the violator; 3) there will be no sense of previously taken into account mitigating circumstances for what this person has done"; "... it is necessary to individualize administrative responsibility for such an offense is not only for legal entities, but also for all business entities. The authors of the article also propose that all subjects of administrative responsibility for this offense be exempted from paying a double fine if there is an indication in the initial decision (resolution) on bringing to administrative responsibility against the perpetrator of mitigating circumstances, the establishment of which led to a decrease in the amount of administrative sanctions by 1.5 or more times," etc. Thus, the article makes a certain contribution to the development of domestic legal science and, of course, deserves the attention of the readership. The scientific style of the study is fully sustained by the authors. The structure of the article is quite logical. In the introductory part of the article, the authors substantiate the relevance of their chosen research topic. In the main part of the work, scientists identify the shortcomings of the legal technique of Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and give recommendations for its improvement. The final part of the article contains conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the work, as already noted, does not fully correspond to its title. It is also not without a slight drawback of a formal nature. Thus, the authors write: "... in case of violation of the currency legislation by the employer – payment of wages to non–residents in cash (Part 1 of Article 15.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) - the arbitration court recognized as a mitigating circumstance inconsistency with the interests of the person being prosecuted, the punitive nature of liability for this offense." The proposal has not been agreed upon, its meaning is obscured. The bibliography of the study is presented by 8 sources (monographs and scientific articles). From a formal and factual point of view, this is quite enough. The nature and number of sources used in writing the article allowed scientists to reveal the research topic with the necessary depth and completeness. There is an appeal to opponents, both general and private (I. V. Maksimov), and it is quite sufficient. The scientific discussion is conducted by the authors correctly. The provisions of the work are justified to the necessary extent. Conclusions based on the results of the conducted research are available ("... according to the authors of this article, other legal instruments should be used when identifying the problem of non-payment or systematic non-payment of an administrative fine, for example: establishing a fixed amount of sanction; establishing the possibility of exemption from this type of punishment if there are mitigating circumstances when bringing to justice for the initial offense, the application of measures to ensure the production (as a guarantee of the execution of punishment), or the commission by the bailiff of executive actions outside the framework of the administrative and legal field. Making a decision (resolution) over and over again under Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation does not solve this problem of voluntary payment of an administrative fine, but, on the contrary, increases the burden on the staff of bailiffs, courts and often does not ensure the final receipt of the amount of the sanction to the budget"), have the properties of reliability and validity, and undoubtedly deserve the attention of potential readers. The interest of the readership in the article submitted for review can be shown primarily by specialists in the field of administrative law and administrative process, provided that it is slightly improved: clarifying the title of the work, disclosing the methodology of the study, additional justification of the relevance of its topic, elimination of violations in the design of the article.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The article "The repressive nature of the application of administrative sanctions provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (non-payment of an administrative fine within the time limit provided for by the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) and the need to take into account circumstances mitigating administrative punishment" for publication in the journal Administrative and Municipal Law is submitted for review. The title of the article corresponds to the passport of the scientific specialty 5.1.2 – Public law (state law) sciences, item 19 "Administrative offenses and administrative responsibility. Proceedings in cases of administrative offenses". At the same time, the work complies with the journal's policy of publishing articles devoted to a comprehensive study of topical issues of the science of administrative and municipal law. The author indicates the circumstances mitigating administrative punishment, which are subject to consideration when applying the sanction of Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code for evading the execution of administrative punishment. In researching the subject, the author turned to the monographic and scientific works of Russian scientists on similar legal relations and identified an important component of the development of the theory of administrative law – minimizing punitive instruments, liberalizing the imposition of administrative punishment, reducing the bureaucratic burden on the bodies executing administrative punishment. What actually takes place and requires every possible development and scientific understanding. In this aspect, the scientific value and novelty of the article submitted for review is priceless and undeniable. The methodology used in writing the article is based on general scientific methods of cognition of the subject of research. The following general scientific methods are used: analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy as general logical rules for the implementation of a researcher's mental activity when studying the subject of an article, analyzing legislation, and law enforcement practice. Private scientific research methods are also applied: formal-logical, comparative-legal, interpretation of the norms of administrative legislation. However, there are inaccuracies that need to be eliminated in order to achieve a high degree of scientific validity of the presented work, such as: 1) in terms of substantiating the relevance of the study of the subject of the article, the author resorted to analyzing law enforcement activities based on research conducted by another author before 2012 (reference No. 7 in the bibliographic list), whereas in the work these data are identified with 2020 and 2021; 2) in terms of using a special statistical research method – for the stability of the dynamics of "the number of administrative cases considered for non-payment of fines under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation" (quoting from the text of the article), it is necessary to take statistical data for at least the last three years or even more; 3) in terms of bibliographic The description needs to be adjusted: the journal's policy covers the principle of scientific validity and depth of research. This implies a reasonable quantitative indicator of the publications cited and used in writing the article. There should be at least 10 sources, the vast majority of which should be dated to modern editions for the last 3 years. Also, examples from judicial practice in the text of the article need to be quoted correctly. In general, the author's article is correctly structured, logically consistent and presented in scientific language. The paper draws conclusions and suggestions, the practical and scientific value of which is not questioned and will attract the attention of students of legal fields of study in universities, researchers and practicing lawyers. The reviewer's conclusion: the article "The repressive nature of the application of administrative sanctions provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (non-payment of an administrative fine within the time limit provided for by the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), and the need to take into account circumstances mitigating administrative punishment" can be published in the journal "Administrative and Municipal Law" after its revision in terms of the above comments.

Third Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study. In the reviewed article "The repressive nature of the application of administrative sanctions provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (non-payment of an administrative fine within the time limit provided for by the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) and the need to take into account circumstances mitigating administrative punishment", the subject of the study is the norms of administrative law governing administrative relations on non-payment of a fine on time. Research methodology. The methodological apparatus consists of the following dialectical techniques and methods of scientific cognition: analysis, abstraction, induction, deduction, hypothesis, analogy, synthesis, typology, classification, systematization and generalization. When writing the article, such methods as historical, statistical, theoretical and prognostic, formal legal, system-structural and legal modeling were used. The use of modern methods made it possible to study the established approaches, views on the subject of research, develop an author's position and argue it. The relevance of the study is due to the fact that there is an increase in the number of administrative offense cases under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. This situation is associated with various factors, including economic "... (economic instability in a market economy, financial difficulties in the financial situation of citizens and entrepreneurs), and tightening control by government agencies." The author of the article proves the need to take into account the circumstances mitigating administrative punishment for non-payment of an administrative fine within the time limit provided for by the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. It seems that the problems identified by the author indicate the importance of doctrinal developments that may be of practical importance for both rulemaking and law enforcement. Scientific novelty. Without questioning the effectiveness of previous scientific research, which served as the theoretical basis for this article, nevertheless, it can be noted that this publication for the first time formulated noteworthy provisions, for example: "... other legal instruments should be used when identifying the problem of non-payment or systematic non-payment of an administrative fine, for example: the establishment of a fixed amount of sanctions; the establishment of the possibility of exemption from this type of punishment in the case of mitigating circumstances when being held accountable for the initial offense, the application of measures to ensure production (as a guarantee of execution of punishment), or the commission by the bailiff of executive actions outside the framework of the administrative and legal field. Making a decision (resolution) over and over again under Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation does not solve this problem of voluntary payment of an administrative fine, but, on the contrary, increases the burden on the staff of bailiffs, courts and often does not ensure the final receipt of the amount of the sanction to the budget." Based on the results of writing the article, the author has made a number of other noteworthy theoretical conclusions and proposals, which indicates not only the importance of this study for legal science, but also determines its practical significance. Style, structure, content. The article is written in a scientific style, using special legal terminology. In general, the material is presented consistently, competently and clearly. The article is structured. Although, perhaps, the introduction to the article needs to be finalized, since it does not meet the requirements for this part of the scientific article. The topic has been revealed. The content of the article corresponds to its title. As minor and avoidable comments, we can note: 1) the title of the article should be adjusted, since it is unnecessary to include explanations in parentheses in the title of the article "(non-payment of an administrative fine within the time limit provided for by the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation)", and also, it is advisable not to use an abbreviation, the full name of the normative legal act is better; 2) the abbreviation of the Administrative Code, although it is generally recognized, should be clarified at the first in the article, the author gives an explanation only at the fifth mention; 3) when addressing opponents, initials are indicated first in writing the full name, and then the last name (in the article, on the contrary). And, in addition, examples from judicial practice should be updated. Bibliography. The author has used a sufficient number of doctrinal sources. References to these sources are designed in compliance with the requirements of the bibliographic GOST. Appeal to opponents. The article presents a scientific discussion, and appeals to opponents are correct. All borrowings are decorated with links to the author and the source of the publication. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The article "The repressive nature of the application of administrative sanctions provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (non-payment of an administrative fine within the time limit provided for by the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) and the need to take into account circumstances mitigating administrative punishment" is recommended for publication, since it meets the requirements for scientific publications and complies with the editorial policy of the journal "Administrative and Municipal Law". The article is written on an urgent topic, has practical significance and is characterized by scientific novelty. The comments on the article are minor and avoidable. This article may be of interest to a wide readership, primarily specialists in the field of administrative law, and will also be useful for teachers and students of law schools and faculties.