The Supreme Council of Mines, as the highest policymaking and regulatory authority in the mining sector, performs not only administrative and executive functions but also, in certain cases, adopts decisions that possess a quasi-judicial nature in terms of both decision-making procedures and legal effects. This article examines the nature of such decisions and analyzes their relationship with fundamental principles of criminal law, particularly the principle of legality of crimes and punishments and the requirements of fair trial. The findings indicate that some resolutions of the Council, such as the revocation of mining licenses or the imposition of substantial administrative fines, although issued within the executive branch, may produce effects comparable or close to criminal sanctions on individuals’ rights and economic status. At the same time, the Mining Act does not provide a clear and precise definition of the scope of the Council’s quasi-judicial powers, and the decision-making procedures lack sufficient guarantees of administrative justice. This situation increases the risk of overlapping jurisdiction among administrative, quasi-judicial, and judicial authorities and may lead to a practical violation of the principle of legality. The article concludes that while the resolutions of the Supreme Council of Mines cannot independently serve as a basis for criminalization or the imposition of criminal punishment, they may nevertheless play a significant role in the formation of criminal liability in practice. Accordingly, legislative clarification, a clear distinction between administrative violations and criminal offenses, and the reform of quasi-judicial procedures within the Council are identified as essential requirements for upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights.