REPETITION IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURAL LAW
Introduction: Modern society, being on the path of reforming social relations, is gradually moving away from the generally accepted moral principles of coexistence, which gives rise to the commission of new illegal and antisocial acts by certain categories of citizens. The reasons for the acts committed that contradict the requirements of legislation and generally accepted norms of coexistence are obvious moral changes in society, the destruction of moral values, imaginary, and in some cases, actual permissiveness and impunity. More and more often, the commission of administrative offenses is observed repeatedly, in the media, social networks often reflect the systematic nature of the commission of such offenses as, for example, driving while intoxicated. So in 2020, only in the city of Irkutsk, 3,937 drivers were brought to administrative responsibility for driving a vehicle in a state of intoxication, or who refused to undergo a medical examination; 558 crimes were committed by drivers who were previously brought to administrative responsibility (Article 264.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), therefore, 14% of offenders repeatedly admit driving in a state of intoxication. In addition to offenses in the field of road safety, offenses in the field of public order, public safety, and illegal drug trafficking are most often repeated. Given the level of public danger of the listed offenses, it is necessary to clearly establish the procedure for bringing violators to justice for repeated (repeated) committing of illegal acts, in order to exclude their evasion from punishment. With outwardly sufficient normative regulation of repeated prosecution, the application of norms regulating the repetition of offenses is quite often problematic. Questions in law enforcement practice arise when re-committing offenses is detected, which is facilitated by insufficient legislative consolidation of the very concept of repeated committing of an administrative offense, the sequence of prosecution is not clear enough when qualifying acts with administrative precedence in individual cases. Materials and Methods: the research is based on the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, judicial acts, branch scientific works. The methodological basis is formed by methods of analysis and description. Results of the Study: proposals were made to amend the administrative legislation aimed at eliminating inconsistencies in the procedure for qualifying the composition of repeated administrative offenses. Findings and Conclusions: as conclusions, the authors have come to a consensus about the need to codify the norms regarding the repeated commission of administrative offenses, legislative consolidation of the concept of repetition and repetition of offenses, amendments to certain norms of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in order to eliminate the ambiguity of their interpretation.