To many, an administrative fine seems like the end of the process: the agency has issued a decision, and the individual is left with the choice of either paying the fine or appealing to court. In practice, however, there is a third option—the authority that imposed the fine, upon receiving the individual’s appeal and evaluating their arguments, may acknowledge its mistake and revoke the unfounded decision before the dispute reaches court.
According to Dainius Antanaitis, an attorney at AVOCAD, this option is important not only for the person facing administrative liability but also for the institution itself, as it helps avoid unnecessary legal proceedings and the associated financial consequences.
From the report to the fine—a few important steps
Administrative offense proceedings typically begin when an official draws up a report of an administrative offense. The case is then heard, and the person subject to administrative liability must be duly informed of the time and place of the hearing.
Both during the preparation of the report and during the examination of the case, the individual has the right to provide explanations, evidence, and arguments as to why they disagree with the violation they are accused of. If the authorities are not convinced by these, a decision is issued and an administrative penalty is imposed. “The imposition of a fine should not be a mere formality at the end of the procedure. When issuing a decision, the authority must have assessed all relevant circumstances and have sufficient grounds to establish the violation. Otherwise, an erroneous decision may result not only in its reversal in court but also in additional costs for the state,” says Dainius Antanaitis, an attorney at AVOCAD.
If the case is won, the party may claim reimbursement of court costs. Upon receiving the decision, the individual essentially has two main options: to accept the imposed penalty or to appeal it. If the dispute reaches court and the person succeeds in proving that the administrative offense proceedings against them should be terminated, they are also entitled to reimbursement of litigation costs from the state. Therefore, according to D. Antanaitis, a government agency’s decision to continue a dispute—even when the arguments presented in the complaint reveal obvious flaws in the initial ruling—can have a concrete financial cost. “If an agency realizes that its decision was unfounded, it is not rational to wait—merely as a formality—until a court confirms this. Legal proceedings cost time and money not only for the individual but ultimately for the state as well,” the attorney notes.
An agency may correct its own error
An important detail: an appeal against a decision rendered out of court in an administrative offense case must be filed with the court through the authority that issued the decision.
It is precisely at this stage that the agency has the opportunity to reassess its decision and the arguments presented by the individual. “Upon receiving a complaint, the agency is not required to automatically forward it to court and await the judge’s verdict. If the arguments in the complaint are well-founded, the agency has the option of revoking its own decision. In other words, the law provides an opportunity to correct the error even before judicial proceedings begin,” explains D. Antanaitis.
If the agency disagrees with the complaint, it is referred to a court for review. However, if it is determined that the fine was imposed unjustifiably, the error can be corrected much more easily.
Admitting a mistake may be cheaper than defending it in court
In Antanaitis’s view, such a procedure should encourage institutions to view complaints they receive not as a mere formality to be forwarded to the court, but as a real opportunity to reexamine the legality and validity of their decision. “An agency that realizes it imposed a fine unjustifiably can correct its own mistake—without going to court. This is not only faster for the individual but also more rational for the state itself: it avoids unnecessary litigation and a potential obligation to reimburse the individual for court costs,” summarizes AVOCAD attorney Dainius Antanaitis. Sometimes the best course of action for an agency is not to defend a decision at any cost, but to acknowledge in a timely manner that it was unfounded and to correct the error before it escalates into a legal dispute.