RF Code of Administrative Offenses (Code of Administrative Offenses) from 30.12.2001 N 195-FZ Article 19.20

18.01.2019 Comments (1) Science and education  Like

RF Code of Administrative Offenses (Code of Administrative Offenses) from 30.12.2001 N 195-FZ

Article 19.20. Implementation activities, non-profit-making, without a special permit (of the license)

(in order. Federal Law of 08.11.2010 N 293-FZ)

(cm. in the previous wording)

1. Implementation activities, non-profit-making, without a special permit (of the license), if such a permit (license) necessarily (obligatory), –

shall entail a warning or imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of five hundred to one thousand rubles; on officials – from thirty thousand to fifty thousand rubles or disqualification for a period of one year to three years; to persons, engaged in entrepreneurial activities without a legal entity, – from thirty thousand to forty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activity for up to ninety days; for legal entities – one hundred seventy thousand two hundred and fifty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activity for up to ninety days.

2. Implementation activities, non-profit-making, violation of the requirements or conditions of the special permit (of the license), if such a permit (license) necessarily (obligatory), –

shall entail a warning or imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of three hundred to five hundred rubles; on officials – from fifteen thousand to twenty five thousand rubles; to persons, engaged in entrepreneurial activities without a legal entity, – from five thousand to ten thousand rubles; for legal entities – from seventy thousand to one hundred thousand.

3. Implementation activities, non-profit-making, a gross violation of the requirements or conditions of the special permit (of the license), if such a permit (license) necessarily (obligatory), –

punishable by an administrative fine on officials in the amount of twenty thousand to thirty thousand rubles; to persons, engaged in entrepreneurial activities without a legal entity, – from ten thousand to twenty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activity for up to ninety days; for legal entities – from one hundred thousand to one hundred and fifty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activity for up to ninety days.

http://www.consultant.ru/popular/koap/13_20.html
© Consultant, 1992-2015

Municipal institution for violating the conditions of the treatment with sources of ionizing radiation shall be liable for hours. 3 Article. 14.1 The Administrative Code where there is evidence now providing paid services.

When inspecting municipal institutions “dental clinic” (Further – clinic) They were found violations of requirements of Articles 11, 14 Federal Law of 09.01.1996 N 3-FZ “On Radiation Safety of the Population”, articles 24 Federal Law of 30.03.1999 N 52 “On the sanitary-epidemiological welfare of population”, points 3.6, 3.20, 3.21, 3.22, 3.28, 5.7, 6.3, 9.11, 8.4.7, 10.21, SanPin 2.6.1.1192-03 “Hygiene requirements for the design and operation of X-ray rooms, devices and conduct radiological examinations”, subparagraphs “but”, “g” points 6, points 19 Provision on licensing activities in the field of ionizing radiation sources, approved by RF Government Decree 25.02.2004 N 107. The audit report on administrative offense was drawn up on the part of 3 articles 14.1 Administrative Offenses Code, providing for responsibility for business activities with violation of conditions, provided a special permit (license). Protocol testing materials in accordance with Article 23.1 The Administrative Code was sent on jurisdiction to the arbitral tribunal for a decision on bringing to administrative responsibility Clinics.

The Arbitration Court of First Instance came to the conclusion about the need to characterize the actions of the Clinics of 2 articles 19.20 Administrative Offenses Code, providing responsibility for carrying out activities, non-profit-making, violation of the requirements or conditions of the special permit (of the license), if such a permit (license) necessarily (obligatory). The Court pointed out, that there is no evidence of the Polyclinic of business, rendered paid services are not systematic and their volume case file on an administrative offense is not defined.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the conclusion of the trial court in the absence of action Clinics aggravating circumstance (entrepreneurial activity), under Part. 3 Article. 14.1 Administrative Offenses Code, in connection with the following.

The objective side of the offense, under Part. 3 Article. 14.1 Administrative Offenses Code, It is the implementation of business activity in violation of the license conditions and requirements.

According to materials Clinic case in accordance with its charter, in addition to the core activities, providing paid medical services: subject of activity of the institution is to provide the population of highly onerous medical services; institution on its own behalf concludes contracts for onerous provision of services to consumers; It sells its products, works and services at prices and tariffs, set yourself (except for certain types of products, to which they are regulated by local authorities); annual earnings, resulting in the establishment of economic activities, after taxes goes to funds, formed in the institution.

In accordance with a portion 1 articles 2 Civil Code of the Russian Federation is an independent business activity, carried out at one's own risk, aimed at systematically profit from the use of property, sale of goods, execution of works or services.

In the case file there is evidence, confirming the fact of providing the Polyclinic of paid medical services to the consumer, a copy of the dress with the price of services rendered, a copy of an extract from the price list for the provision of paid medical services.

The Court of Appeal noted, that medical activities in violation of the licensing requirements can be carried out both on a paid basis, and free of charge, because the legislator provides uniform requirements for health protection of citizens in the provision of health services as a paid, and free of charge.

The above circumstances have allowed the court appellate court concluded that, that the municipal authority “dental clinic” carries on business, and in connection with this characterization of the offense h. 3 Article. 14.1 CAO is correct.