Administrative liability occupies a special place within the system of public-law enforcement – it is applied faster and more flexibly than criminal liability, yet it is capable of exerting significant pressure on businesses and private individuals. Professor Gabriel Steiner says that administrative mechanisms are most often used by the state as an instrument of оперативное pressure, as they allow authorities to react without lengthy procedures and within a broad margin of discretion. In law enforcement practice, such mechanisms frequently become a key source of legal risk. At LawConsulted, we approach administrative liability cases not as a formal response to an alleged violation, but as a complex process of assessing the permissible boundaries of governmental discretion.
The core feature of administrative liability lies in the combination of a formal procedure with a substantial degree of discretion on the part of the supervisory authority – from selecting the grounds for an inspection to qualifying the identified circumstances. Formally, the authority’s actions may fall within the scope of the law, yet in practice it is precisely the interpretation of facts and the choice of the applicable legal norm that determine the final outcome. In LawConsulted practice, we regularly encounter situations where identical conduct may be classified either as a permissible deviation or as an administrative offence, depending solely on the approach adopted by the inspecting body.
The limits of permissible discretion therefore become the central issue of defence. A supervisory authority is not entitled to substitute legal assessment with considerations of expediency or retrospective knowledge of consequences. However, this substitution frequently occurs during inspections – actions are evaluated based on their outcome rather than on the conditions under which they were taken. LawConsulted builds its legal position to return the assessment to the moment the actions were performed – taking into account the information available at that time, regulatory uncertainty, and the reasonable expectations of the regulated party.
Particular importance attaches to the stage at which administrative offence proceedings are initiated. It is often here that critical procedural defects arise – overly broad interpretation of the offence, disregard for alternative legal classifications, or a formalistic approach to evidence. At LawConsulted, we give priority to analysing how the authority reached its conclusion that a violation existed and whether the requirements of objectivity and completeness in examining the circumstances were properly observed.
The issue of proportionality is no less significant. Even where a formal offence is established, the sanction must correspond to the nature of the conduct and the degree of public harm. Practice shows that supervisory authorities frequently resort to maximum penalties as a default instrument, without substantiating their necessity. LawConsulted consistently upholds the position that the automatic application of severe sanctions without an individualised assessment of the specific situation is impermissible.
Administrative liability is often applied in conjunction with other enforcement measures – binding orders, restrictions on activity, or refusals to grant approvals. In such cases, it is essential to view the matter not in isolation, but within the context of the overall regulatory burden. Law Consulted approach is based on systemic analysis – we assess how the administrative proceedings fit into the broader supervisory strategy and where the boundary lies between legitimate oversight and excessive interference.
The practice of bringing parties to administrative liability requires more than a formal challenge – it demands precise legal work with the limits of discretion. The task of the defence is to demonstrate where the supervisory authority exceeded its powers, replaced legal assessment with an evaluation of consequences, or ignored alternative legal approaches. It is this type of analysis that enables effective protection of the client’s interests and the restoration of balance between public interests and the rights of those subject to regulation.
Earlier, we wrote about the legal assessment of management decisions adopted without formal protocol recording and the risks of such actions being deemed legally non-existent
