This article analyzes the possibility of recognizing claim preclusion value of judicial rulings in cases involving administrative offenses in arbitrazh proceedings. Implementation of claim preclusion character of such orders is determined by procedural efficiency. In this case, the author indicates the difference in the legal regulation of the procedure of bringing to administrative responsibility in courts of general jurisdiction and arbitrazh courts. Whereas in courts of general jurisdiction such an activity cannot be called justice because neither the principle of adversarial procedure nor the principle of objective truth are applied, arbitrazh tribunals apply general rules of claim proceedings whereby shortfalls of proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offenses are eliminated. Proceedings regulated under the Code of Administrative Offenses do not meet the requirements of justice, which prevents from recognizing the claim preclusion significance of the judicial decisions made during such proceedings. Provisions of the Code of Arbitrazh Proceedings spread general principles of justice over the procedure of brining to administrative responsibility: adversarial character of proceedings and the principle of objective truth. For this reason, arbitrazh courts assign preclusive significance to court holdings in cases that involve administrative offenses passed by arbitrazh tribunals and deny preclusive character of similar rulings of courts of general jurisdiction. The author justifies the failure to use analogy of law with regard to the judicial rulings in cases involving administrative offenses held by courts of general jurisdiction and analyzes the existing judicial practice.