Features of Administrative Liability in Occupational Safety

Abstract

The article examines the features of administrative responsibility in occupational safety, based on an analysis of Ukrainian legislation, annual reports of the State Service of Ukraine on labour issues, and judicial practice for 2020–2025. It is substantiated that administrative responsibility is an important means of ensuring the implementation of the state policy on occupational safety and guaranteeing workers' right to safe and healthy working conditions. The main features of administrative responsibility in occupational safety are highlighted, in particular, the grounds for its occurrence, types of administrative offenses, the circle of subjects of administrative responsibility, bodies and officials authorized to draw up protocols on administrative offenses and consider relevant cases, as well as types of administrative fines applied for their commission.

Particular attention is paid to enforcement problems relating to the prosecution of an employee for actually admitting to work without a contract of employment. It is established that the consolidation of responsibility for such a violation simultaneously in the second part of Article 265 of the Labor Code of Ukraine and the third part of Article 41 of the Code of Administrative Offenses creates difficulties in determining the legal nature of the relevant act and choosing the appropriate type of legal responsibility. Based on the analysis of the legal positions of the Supreme Court, the conclusion about the administrative and legal nature of the specified offense is substantiated. It is proposed to exclude the corresponding composition of the violation from the second part of Article 265 of the Labor Code of Ukraine in order to ensure legal certainty and compliance with the principle of «non bis in idem».

Based on the results of the analysis of judicial practice, the insufficient effectiveness of the mechanism of administrative liability on occupational safety is established, which is manifested in a significant number of closed proceedings due to the absence of an event or composition of an administrative offense, the insignificance of the offense, or the expiration of the terms of prosecution. The lack of unity in judicial practice regarding the application of Article 41 of the Code of Administrative Offenses is revealed, and the expediency of improving its sanctions by reviewing the lower limits of individual fines and expanding opportunities for individualization of administrative liability іs substantiated.