Study of the Practice of Application of Administrative Sanctions

to Individuals within Distribution of COVID-19 in the

Case of Violation of Sanitary and Epidemiological Requirements:

Validity and Legal Conflicts

Yulia Goloborodko

Rostov State University of Economics, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

Keywords: Individuals, Administrative Sanctions, Covid 19, Sanitary and Epidemiological Requirements.

Abstract:

The article studies the validity and practice of applying administrative sanctions to individuals within the

spread of COVID-19 in case of violation of sanitary and epidemiological requirements. It was determined

that at present administrative legislation in the field of protecting health and ensuring the epidemiological

well-being of the population is being intensively developed due to the changing situation in the world and in

the country regarding the spread of coronavirus infection. Amendments were made to the Code of

Administrative Offenses that contributed to the restriction of social contacts and, as a result, the virus spread.

However, the main problem in this context is not the adoption of legislative acts in the field of administrative

and legal relations in the area under consideration regulation, but the return of their interpretation and

implementation to the regions. For this reason, we consider it necessary to strengthen control over

implementation of administrative and legal regulations related to protecting health and ensuring the sanitary

and epidemiological well-being of the population in the regions at the federal level by analyzing the real

practice of introducing restrictions, which, judging by the picture of the pandemic development, will be in our

country for more than one year.

1 INTRODUCTION

As of the end of October 2021, more than 4.5 million

people have died from coronavirus disease 2019

(COVID-19), causing unprecedented economic and

social disruption. In Russia, the death rate from this

disease amounted to more than 228 thousand people,

and this figure is growing daily.

In response to the virus, at the dawn of the

pandemic, most epidemiologists and policy makers

agreed on the need to restrict freedom of movement,

invest in personal protective equipment (PPE) and

hospital resources (tests, drugs, ventilators), and

increase virus tracking capacity to identify clusters of

infections to contain further outbreaks (Sarychev,

Arkhiptsev, 2021).

In this regard, in various countries, legislative acts

were adopted or changes were made to existing

regulations, according to which a number of sanctions

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0496-3440

were introduced as part of administrative

responsibility in case of non-compliance by

individuals with anti-epidemiological safety

measures. However, this situation, despite the good

message, still had a number of hypertrophied legal

manifestations, adjusted over time, but still

negatively affecting the legal status of citizens.

The purpose of the paper is to consider the validity

and legal conflicts of the practice of applying

administrative sanctions to individuals within the

spread of COVID-19 in case of violation of sanitary

and epidemiological requirements.

2 STUDY METHODS AND

METHODOLOGY

In the process of writing the paper, an array of

references corresponding to the topic, both from

126

Goloborodko, Y.

Study of the Practice of Application of Administrative Sanctions to Individuals Within Distribution of COVID-19 in the Case of Violation of Sanitary and Epidemiological Requirements: Validity

and Legal Conﬂicts.

DOI: 10.5220/0011111700003439

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference "COVID-19: Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals" (RTCOV 2021), pages 126-131

ISBN: 978-989-758-617-0

foreign and domestic authors, was studied, the

resulting material was studied through use of

comparative and analytical methods.

3 STUDY RESULTS

In December 2019, coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

emerged in China. Within weeks, the disease had

spread far beyond China, reaching countries in all

parts of the globe. In early March of 2020, most

governments, including Europe, closed their borders

to international travel. In addition, freedom of

movement across countries is significantly limited.

This is due to the decision to take immediate action to

limit the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Measures

taken include stopping the influx of people from

abroad and limiting or eliminating the possibility of

people joining together in larger clusters and social

groups.

The rapid spread among religious groups was the

first and most difficult problem the world had to face

until the antiviral alert level turned red and the WHO

officially announced the start of a new pandemic in

the world.

Every country has taken some form of social

distancing. Studies have shown that most of the group

infections in the workplace developed in dense

environments with limited space, which greatly

exacerbated the transmission of aerosols. Social

distancing has been recognized as one of the most

important preventive measures in our country, and

people have been advised to minimize contact in

everyday life (Sinitsyna, V.A., 2021).

Along with the popularization of social distancing

measures, legal consolidation of administrative

responsibility for violation of the anti-

epidemiological regime introduced in the context of

the spread of coronavirus infection was carried out.

The reasons for introducing changes to the legislation

on administrative offenses were related to the fact that

its main task is to protect the life and health of

citizens, as well as to ensure the sanitary and

epidemiological well-being of the population. For

this reason, at a very early stage in the development

of the disease, considering the sharp increase in cases

and the increase in the death rate, as well as to

suppress rumors about the mythical component of the

coronavirus infection, certain administrative

regulations and restrictions were introduced.

Administrative responsibility in the area under

consideration arose due to the fact that amendments

were made to the Code of Administrative Offenses in

accordance with the adopted Federal Law "On

Amendments to the Code of the Russian Federation

on Administrative Offenses". A number of articles of

this legislative act were subject to adjustment. Let's

take a closer look at the amendments introduced.

1.Art. 6.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses

of the Russian Federation. This article concerns

ensuring the sanitary and epidemiological well-being

of the population. As an addition to this article, two

elements were introduced. According to the first

element, penalties are provided if the violation of

sanitary rules and hygiene standards occurs "during

the period of emergency situations or when there is a

threat of the spread of a disease that poses a danger to

others or during the implementation of restrictive

measures (quarantine) in the relevant territory"

(Konev, S.I., 2020).

In the framework of this innovation the

responsible persons could be recognized as persons

who did not fulfill within a certain period of time the

instructions of Rospotrebnadzor, which regulated the

implementation of sanitary and anti-epidemic

measures.

The Decree of the Government of the Russian

Federation dated January 31, 2020 No. 66 "On

Amendments to the List of Diseases Dangerous to

Others", according to which the coronavirus infection

was recognized as a dangerous disease for others.

A review on certain issues of judicial practice

related to application of legislation and measures to

counteract the spread of a new coronavirus infection

(COVID-19) No. 1 in the Russian Federation,

approved by the Presidium of the RF Armed Forces

on April 21, 2020, outlined the entities that shall have

been involved in liability under the sanctions of Part

2, Article 6.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses

of the Russian Federation. The circle of these persons

included those who were suspected of having the

disease, those who were in contact with patients with

coronavirus infection. Also, the persons who evade

treatment, and those who arrived in the Russian

Federation from countries with an unfavorable

epidemiological situation fell under the sanctions of

this article.

The considered article of the Code of

Administrative Offenses regulated the issues of

imposing penalties in accordance with the status of

the perpetrator of an administrative offense. Namely,

individuals could be punished with a fine of 15 to 40

thousand rubles (Shoronov, O.V., Matveeva, K.S.,

2021).

Already in the spring of 2020, due to introduction

of restrictions and social distancing, as well as

mandatory requirements for wearing PPE, a

significant number of cases of administrative offenses

Study of the Practice of Application of Administrative Sanctions to Individuals Within Distribution of COVID-19 in the Case of Violation of

Sanitary and Epidemiological Requirements: Validity and Legal Conﬂicts

127

were initiated. Thus, a citizen of the Russian

Federation who had a confirmed medical diagnosis of

COVID-19 was subjected to an administrative

penalty in the form of a fine of 15 thousand rubles for

the fact that she arbitrarily left the place of residence,

where she was ordered to observe quarantine.

Statistics show that in Russia for the period from

April 1 to June 8, more than sixteen thousand

administrative cases were initiated under Part 2 of

Article 6.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of

the Russian Federation. A significant part of them -

1/4 of all cases - fell on the Krasnodar Territory,

where such anti-epidemiological measures were of a

"pronounced" nature. Namely, a system of passes of

various colors was introduced in this territory,

according to which the inhabitants of the region could

move at a certain time and in a certain direction.

Violators of this access regime were detained and

administrative protocols were drawn up. Wherein,

“excesses at places” were also noted, when citizens

who decided to visit a store located within the

“allowed” 100 m from their house were fined by a

patrol whose duties included preventing the free

movement of citizens across the territory of

settlements.

Another "excess" in this context in the Krasnodar

Territory shall be considered the peculiarities of

issuing passes for movement of employees of farms

and temporary seasonal workers. Namely, there were

cases when a farmer who planted a particular crop

before winter or early spring simply could not harvest

due to the lack of workers who were limited in

movement due to lack of passes and could not get to

the place of work. In addition, restrictions on the entry

of cars into the territory of the Krasnodar Territory

also made it impossible for the timely export of

finished agricultural products to other regions, as a

result of which farmers and large farms suffered

significant losses and had to dispose of the crop.

In the article under consideration, as already

indicated, such an element was introduced, according

to which, administrative responsibility could be more

significant. Namely, the actions or omissions of the

guilty individuals in infecting a citizen, if as a result

of such infection harm to his/her health or death, were

punished by a fine in the amount of 150 thousand to

300 thousand rubles (Shumskikh, Yu.L., 2020).

This article also included violations of social

distancing of citizens. To maintain social distance at

transport facilities, as well as in the premises of shops,

shopping centers and other places of mass visitation

of people, special markings were applied so that

people keep a distance of 1.5 m. In absence of such

markings, the persons responsible for its application

shall be held responsible for non-compliance with the

rules of social distance. Wherein, in some cases, if

violations were detected under this clause, the

regional authorities had the right to suspend the work

of the guilty organization for a period of 30 to 90

days.

Also, the Code of Administrative Offenses was

amended regarding Art. 13.15, which regulated

administrative liability for the dissemination of

knowingly false information specifically for legal

entities, since the punishment for individuals has

already been defined in Parts 9 and 10. This article

covered the actions of the media that disseminated

false and inaccurate information. The punishment

under this article was designated in the amount of 1.5

to 3 million rubles, and if such information resulted

in the death of a person, harm to human health or

property, mass violation of public order, etc., then the

amount of the fine is already ranged from 3 to 5

million rubles.

It shall also be said about the supplements made

to Chapter 20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses

of the Russian Federation: it was supplemented with

Article 20.6.1 – failure to comply with the rules of

conduct in an emergency or the threat of its

occurrence. A feature of this addition was such

sanctions as an administrative warning or a relatively

small administrative fine: a citizen was obliged to pay

to the budget from 1 to 30 thousand rubles.

However, if in this case harm was caused to the

health of another citizen, then the amount of the fine

may increase and range from 15 to 50 thousand

rubles. Under this article, a significant number of

protocols were drawn up on the commission of an

administrative offense due to the lack of PPE – a

protective medical mask, and in some cases –

protective gloves by a citizen who is in a public place.

Namely, in some cities, already at the very initial

stage of the development of the pandemic, raids were

carried out, during which citizens were identified who

were ignoring the rules for wearing the PPE. If quite

often, especially in small towns, citizens managed to

avoid punishment, then the management of stores or

other organizations where a violation was detected

fell under these sanctions, a protocol was drawn up

on the head with a fine of 100 to 300 thousand rubles

(Shumskikh, Yu.L., 2020).

According to practice, since April 14, 2020, the

courts of the Krasnodar Territory have considered

more than 130 cases of an administrative offense

under Art. 20.6.1 of the Code of Administrative

Offenses of the Russian Federation. For 75 of them,

the courts decided to impose an administrative fine in

the amount of 1,000 to 3,000 rubles. In 45 cases, the

RTCOV 2021 - II International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference " COVID-19: Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals

(RTCOV )

128

involved persons received a warning. Accordingly, it

can be concluded that it is the judge who decides at

his own discretion on the amount of the fine to be

imposed.

Also, changes were made to Art. 14.4.2 of the

Code of Administrative Offenses, to which part 4 was

added. According to this change, pharmacy

wholesalers and retailers had to comply with the

maximum amount of markups on the cost of sold

pharmaceuticals. Overpricing of medicines during

this period was recognized by the state as

unacceptable, in this regard, raids were carried out

throughout the country to control the cost of vital

drugs in order to ensure their availability to citizens.

This factor contributed to the stabilization of prices in

pharmacy organizations, which began to rise in the

first weeks of the pandemic, as well as prices for PPE,

which also rose in price by 10-20 times during the

specified period and were not always affordable for

ordinary citizens.

Therefore, the administrative measures taken

were aimed at preventing the spread of the

coronavirus infection and reducing the viral load in

society.

4 DISCUSSION

Adoption of the above measures undoubtedly

contributed to limiting the spread of the infection,

which rapidly spread throughout the world. The

practice of individual foreign countries that have

taken various steps in the field of administrative

restrictions and administrative responsibility in the

field of sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the

population is also interesting (Martin-Fumadó, C.,

Aragonès, L., Areste, M.E., Arimany-Manso, J.,

2021).

Therefore, in Spain, citizens who received a

temporary disability TD) due to a disease caused by

COVID-19 were considered to be carriers of the

disease (CD) in accordance with the definitions

established by the Royal Decree-Law 6/2020 of

March 10, issued to take certain urgent measures in

the field of economics and healthcare. Art. 5 of this

Law states that “in exceptional cases, periods of

isolation or infection by workers caused by the

COVID-19 virus will be considered industrial

accidents, solely for the economic compensation of

temporary disability in the social security system”

(Peron, A.E.R., Duarte, D.E., Simões-Gomes, L.,

Nery, M.B., 2021).

Subsequently, Royal Decree Law 13/2020 of

April 8, 2020, in its first final regulation, modified

articles 5 of Royal Decree Law 6/2020. In addition to

the general consideration of periods of isolation,

infection or restriction of movement outside the

municipality in the event of an exceptional situation

that can be classified as an industrial accident (IA),

this makes it possible to recognize as IA cases of

infection of employees, if it is proved that the disease

was detected exclusively during performance of

production duties.

Legal scholars in Spain opposed such a law, as

they believed that it could only apply to medical

workers whose activities involve a long time of

contact with the infected and, as a result, they are at a

very high risk of becoming infected. The reason for

the attempts to oppose the adoption and enactment of

such a law was the opinion that, in the event of its

action, employees who became infected with a

coronavirus infection at the workplace could not

claim compensation for damage to their health from

the employer in court, which, for example, is not

always complied with the requirements to ensure the

necessary hygiene measures in the framework of

counteracting the spread of coronavirus infection.

Accordingly, if workers who have had a COVID-19

(SARS-CoV-2) infection and contracted the virus due

to an IA situation believe that it was caused by a lack

of safety or hygiene measures, or a lack of preventive

measures (PPE), they do not have the opportunity to

bring claims against the administration, since this

diagnosis, in accordance with the decree-law

discussed above, allows them to claim exclusively

economic compensation for disability (Wright, R.,

2020). In absence of the above law, if the employee

proved that the cause of the coronavirus infection was

the lack of security measures or antiviral protection

on the part of the business owner, he/she could prove

that he/she was claiming economic compensation,

while this compensation could be increased

depending on the severity violations from 30 % to 50

%. Responsibility for payment of compensation in

this case would fall directly on the company that

committed the violation, and compensation could not

be covered by any insurance. Compensation could

include payment of additional social security

services, and criminal or civil liability of the

employer could also be initiated in accordance with

the degree of violations.

In our opinion, adoption of this decree-law was a

necessary measure, since in the case of a mass

infection, a huge number of lawsuits against

employers could provoke chaos in the country, and at

the same time, the interpretation of an industrial

accident in this document has the character of force

majeure, which, in fact, the coronavirus infection is.

Study of the Practice of Application of Administrative Sanctions to Individuals Within Distribution of COVID-19 in the Case of Violation of

Sanitary and Epidemiological Requirements: Validity and Legal Conﬂicts

129

The issues of controlling the movement and social

distancing of those infected with coronavirus in order

to reduce the spread of the disease were also

addressed by many countries at the administrative and

legal level (Barbieri, E., Tumour-Robina, A.,

Armani-Manso, H., 2020).

In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, a host of

digital tools have been offered by professionals

around the world to help return to business as usual

once infection rates are low enough to move on to

“testing and tracing”. This paper has traditionally

been done through manual tracing, but it can be

greatly accelerated with so-called contact tracing

apps that are typically downloaded on users'

smartphones.

The COVID-19 virus is known to be unusual in

that it is highly contagious for up to 7 days, even

before symptoms appear. As a result, contacts cannot

be alerted quickly enough by routine case tracking.

This has sparked a global debate about how tracking

applications shall be built and what security measures

are needed if they are not to jeopardize the privacy of

the entire population. In Asia, such apps are seen as a

successful part of a strategy to suppress tracking and

testing, but in Europe and elsewhere, privacy

considerations are seen as vital. Lack of trust in the

app will prevent people from downloading and using

it. For example, in the UK, in order for an application

to achieve its goal, about 80 % of the population using

smartphones shall download and use it (Barbieri, E.,

Tumour-Robina, A., Armani-Manso, H., 2020).

The controversy surrounding contact tracing apps

mostly revolves around choosing a centralized or

decentralized architecture for them. Centralized

systems can collect more data that could be useful for

epidemiology as well as simple contact tracing, but

there are questions about whether they can ever be

considered anonymous enough to protect privacy. In

contrast, a decentralized system provides almost

complete privacy protection as the collected data

remains on users' phones, but some argue that it is less

useful in the long-term evolution of the pandemic.

A particular problem for the UK is that it initially

opted for a centralized design. This was partly due to

limitations imposed by the early lack of testing

capacity: User-reported symptoms rather than

confirmed test results were entered into the system.

Information coming from users was used to generate

contact notification cascades. Patient-reported

symptoms by their nature generate a high number of

false positives that can only be reduced by collecting

more contextual data, and, therefore, a centralized

risk assessment capability is required. The UK system

has since been overhauled so that contact alerts now

only occur if there are actually positive test results

(Barbieri, E., Tumour-Robina, A., Armani-Manso,

H., 2020).

However, discussion of the legality of the system

in the UK has to date been largely technical due to the

full exploration of the broader legal, ethical and social

implications of such applications. The Coronavirus

(Precautions) Act comes from the fact that while the

UK already has Privacy and Data Protection (DP)

law, it does not currently provide adequate legal

safeguards for a contact tracing app.

Privacy isn't the only issue: it ignores how the app

will be used, especially given the need for high

popularity. Will people carry their phones with them?

Will they be forced to install the app? Which

organizations (for example, government, employers,

public and private business leaders) can force users to

show which notifications they have received? What

are the consequences for users if they refuse to show

their notifications? Which groups of citizens are

likely to suffer the most from discrimination? Who

will control this tracking system? (10. Barbieri, E.,

Tumour-Robina, A., Armani-Manso, H., 2020)

To date, UK legal scholars are still inclined to

protect the rights of people in an unprecedented

emergency. In this regard, a bill was developed,

which contained the following provisions:

1. There shall be no compulsion to own a

smartphone. No one shall be punished for not having

a phone (or other device), leaving home without a

phone, refusing to charge their phone, turning off

Bluetooth, and etc.

2. There shall be no compulsion to install or use

the application. No one shall be forced to install a

symptom and contact tracking app or report their

status on such an app upon request (for example, to

an employer, insurer, or university).

3. Personal data collected by applications must be

deleted as soon as possible or no later than 28 days.

4. Certificates shall not become internal passports

for anyone other than the police; there shall be no

discrimination of citizens on this basis.

5. The Commissioner for Coronavirus Protection

shall review the safeguards in emergency laws and an

appropriate tribunal shall be appointed to deal with

individual complaints.

It shall be noted that this is not just a debate about

privacy and data protection, but also about human

rights, where the privacy acts as a mediator in public

debate; i.e. autonomy, freedom of movement,

freedom of work and freedom from discrimination

among others.

Clause 1 of the bill builds on the argument that

those without a smartphone are often the most

RTCOV 2021 - II International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference " COVID-19: Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals

(RTCOV )

130

disadvantaged in our society, as they are more likely

to live in poverty, grow old, be disabled, or not be tech

savvy. Any system that aims to improve the health of

the population as a whole cannot further marginalize

the disadvantaged population through accessibility

restrictions, such as the requirement to own and use a

smartphone.

Clause 2 of the bill represents a difficult choice

for society. Many argue that employers (for example)

shall have the right to take all possible measures to

protect their jobs. On the other hand, given the likely

high number of false positives, should error-based

discrimination be allowed against employees who

have good reasons for not wanting to download an

app or share their status? Minorities and vulnerable

groups may have legitimate concerns about providing

authorities with comprehensive traceable information

about their social contacts.

The experience of using a contact tracing app

poses familiar challenges for anyone involved in data

ethics. How to deal with discrimination? How to

ensure that only the necessary data is collected and

only for the specified purpose? Who is responsible for

ensuring that data collection is legal and ethical, and

who will protect people who feel they are being

treated unfairly? In essence, what is the balance

between public good and private rights, especially in

an unprecedented emergency?

5 CONCLUSIONS

Currently, administrative legislation in the field of

protecting health and ensuring the epidemiological

well-being of the population is being intensively

developed due to the changing situation in the world

and in the country regarding the spread of coronavirus

infection. Amendments were made to the Code of

Administrative Offenses that contributed to the

restriction of social contacts and, as a result, the virus

spread. However, the main problem in this context is

not the adoption of legislative acts in the field of

administrative and legal relations in the area of

regulation under consideration, but the assignment of

their interpretation and implementation to the regions,

where, as we see, “excesses” occur quite often in this

regard. The reason for transferring the right to make

decisions to the regional level is clear: the heads of

regions and municipalities are at the epicenter of

events and can always quickly assess the situation in

order to take or not take urgent measures to reduce the

spread of infection. However, such global measures

as an attempt to fine a citizen by arranging a raid on

him/her (such cases took place in different cities of

the Krasnodar Territory) in order to impose on

him/her the obligation to pay a fine, guided by the

regulations of the Code of Administrative Offenses,

this contradicts not only the regulations of the rule of

law, but also common sense.

For this reason, we consider it necessary to

strengthen control over implementation of

administrative and legal regulations related to

protecting health and ensuring the sanitary and

epidemiological well-being of the population in the

regions at the federal level by analyzing the real

practice of introducing restrictions, which, judging by

the picture of the pandemic development, will be in

our country for more than one year.

REFERENCES

Konev, S.I., 2020. Sanitary and epidemiological well-being

of citizens and restrictive regimes in administrative law.

Bulletin of economic security, 3.

Sarychev, A.V., Arkhiptsev, I.N., Karaulova, E.A., 2021.

Legal aspects of preventing the spread of coronavirus

infection in the Russian Federation: legislative

novelties and their features. Legal Concept, 1.

Sinitsyna, V.A., 2021. Administrative responsibility of

citizens for violation of the regime introduced in the

context of the coronavirus pandemic. International

Magazine of Humanities and Natural Sciences, 5-4.

Shoronov, O.V., Matveeva, K.S., 2021. Peculiarities of

police activities in maintaining public order during

COVID-19. Bulletin of PenzGU, 2 (34).

Shumskikh, Yu.L., 2020. Tightening legal liability in the

context of coronavirus. VUiT Bulletin, 3 (96).

Peron, A.E.R., Duarte, D.E., Simões-Gomes, L., Nery,

M.B., 2021. Viral surveillance: Governing social

isolation in São Paulo, Brazil, during the COVID-19

Pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3,

1:100128.

Romm, T., Dwoskin, E., Timberg C., 2020. U.S.

government, tech industry discussing ways to use

smartphone location data to combat coronavirus (2020)

The New York Times. Available at: https://

www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/17/whi

te-house-location-data-coronavirus/.

Wright, R., 2020. Coronavirus and the future of

surveillance: Democracies must offer an alternative to

authoritarian solutions. Foreign Affairs [online]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-04-

06/coronavirus-and-future-surveillance.

Martin-Fumadó, C., Aragonès, L., Areste, M.E., Arimany-

Manso, J., 2021. Medico-legal, ethical and

deontological considerations of vaccination against

COVID-19 in healthcare professionals, Medicina

Clínica (English Edition), 157, 2. рages 79-84.

Barbieri, E., Tumour-Robina, A., Armani-Manso, H., 2020.

Medical and legal aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rev Esp MedLegal, 46. pages 89 – 92.

Study of the Practice of Application of Administrative Sanctions to Individuals Within Distribution of COVID-19 in the Case of Violation of

Sanitary and Epidemiological Requirements: Validity and Legal Conﬂicts

131