APPEAL against the Judgment of the Interdistrict Court for Civil Cases of Astana

To the Civil Cases Judicial Panel of the Astana City Court

Plaintiff: STK

Astana, ..l District,...., Building 1, Apartment 104

IIN ...

Tel.: 870...

Representative under Power of AttorneyKenzhebek I.M.Tel.: 8708971785

Defendant:Non-Profit Joint-Stock Company “Astana Medical University”49A Beibitshilik Street, Astana

BIN 080940008218

BIC HSBKKZKX

IBAN KZ676010111000020760

JSC “Halyk Bank of Kazakhstan”

Representative under Power of AttorneyM.D.A.

IIN ...

Tel.: 8 (702) ...

e-mail: .....

APPEAL

against the Judgment of the Interdistrict Court for Civil Cases of Astana

dated 24 July 2026

By the Judgment of the Interdistrict Court for Civil Cases of Astana dated 24 July 2026 in civil case No. 7142-26-00-2/14529, the statement of claim filed by STK was granted in full.

In particular:

• the Order of the Chairman of the Management Board of the Non-Profit Joint-Stock Company “Astana Medical University” dated 15 April 2025 No. 489-с/жс, concerning the expulsion of STK, a fourth-year student of the School of Medicine, from the University, was declared unlawful;
• STK was reinstated as a student of the School of Medicine of the Non-Profit Joint-Stock Company “Astana Medical University”;
• the University was ordered to reimburse the Plaintiff KZT 4,325 in state duty and KZT 600,000 in legal costs associated with the payment for the services of a representative.

The Non-Profit Joint-Stock Company “Astana Medical University” disagrees with the said Judgment and considers it unlawful and unfounded, since the court of first instance failed to establish fully and objectively the circumstances relevant to the case, failed to provide a proper legal assessment of the evidence submitted, incorrectly applied substantive and procedural law, and its conclusions do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the Judgment is subject to reversal on the grounds provided for by Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (the “CPC”).

1. The court formally interpreted the provisions of the Academic Integrity Code and failed to take into account the aggregate of internal regulations applicable to the specific conduct of the student

The court of first instance incorrectly referred to paragraph 56 of the Academic Integrity Code approved by Resolution No. 18 of the University Council dated 23 August 2024.

The said paragraph expressly provides that a warning shall be applied where, before the commencement of the performance of assignments/work submitted for milestone assessment, interim and final certification, mobile phones and other transmitting and receiving electronic devices are detected among students, including smartphones, communicators, tablets, laptops, various players, multifunctional watches, wireless earphones, and other unlawful means of obtaining information.

At the same time, according to the duly executed Act on Violation of Academic Integrity dated 31 March 2025, the “Description of the violation” was stated as follows: “use of a mobile phone during the examination.”

Thus, the court incorrectly applied the said provision.

Furthermore, prior to examinations, the University’s examiners repeatedly warn all students that the use of mobile phones is prohibited.

We emphasize that the “first violation” rule cannot be applied to the Plaintiff, since he had been repeatedly warned, both before and during the examination, that the use of a mobile phone was prohibited.

The court failed to take into account that the violation committed by STK, namely the use of a mobile phone, occurred during the examination, and therefore the aforementioned provision is not directly applicable to him.

However, such conclusion resulted from the failure to consider the entire body of internal regulations governing the legal relationship between the University and the student.

First, the use by a student of a mobile phone and other means of communication during an examination is expressly prohibited by paragraph 5.1.10 of the Agreement on the Provision of Educational Services dated 31 March 2022 No. 7.4-21-1602.

Under this provision, a student is prohibited from using mobile communication devices, cheat sheets, headphones and micro-earphones, gadgets, or other means of communication during current, interim and final assessments.

Accordingly, by referring to paragraph 56 of the Academic Integrity Code, the court incorrectly assessed the legal aspects of the dispute.

Second, paragraph 5.2 of the Agreement provides that, in the event of a student’s violation of the requirements of paragraph 5.1 of the Agreement, the University is entitled to apply disciplinary measures, including expulsion of the student from the University.

Third, pursuant to paragraph 2.2.2 of the Agreement, the University is entitled to apply disciplinary and other measures, including expulsion of the student from the University, where the student violates academic discipline, the terms of the Agreement, internal regulations, academic policy, and the University’s regulatory acts concerning academic integrity.

Thus, the court’s conclusion that the use of a telephone during an examination does not entail disciplinary liability, based solely on one provision of the Code, contradicts the direct and specific terms of the Agreement.

Pursuant to paragraph 18 of Article 47 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Education,” disciplinary measures provided for by the internal regulations and charter of an educational organization, or other measures provided for by an agreement on the provision of educational services, may be applied to students and trainees for violation of their duties.

Therefore, the University’s internal regulations and the terms of the Agreement should have been taken into account when assessing the student’s disciplinary liability.

2. The evidence concerning the warnings and preparation of the incident report was not fully examined

The court of first instance concluded that the University had not warned the student.

However, this conclusion was not based on a complete examination of the evidence contained in the case file.

Before the examination, STK, along with the other students, was repeatedly warned that the use of mobile phones was prohibited, and two verbal warnings were also given to him during the examination.

Despite the numerous warnings, and in violation of the University’s internal regulations concerning academic integrity, an appropriate report was drawn up against STK.

To confirm this circumstance, the employees of the Educational Process Quality Inspection Group who participated in conducting the examination should have been examined by the court as witnesses.

However, the court of first instance did not summon these persons and did not obtain their explanations. As a result, the testimony of the persons who directly witnessed the violation of academic integrity was not examined.

These employees were directly present at the incident, personally observed the student’s conduct, and subsequently participated in preparing the relevant report.

In view of the above, the University had lawful grounds for expelling the Plaintiff.

3. The court’s assessment of the Act dated 31 March 2025 does not correspond to the circumstances of the case or the University’s internal procedures

The court of first instance unreasonably considered the Act on Violation of Academic Integrity dated 31 March 2025 to have been prepared in violation of the requirements of the Code.

However, pursuant to the University’s Academic Integrity Code, once a violation of academic integrity is established, an appropriate act is prepared.

The said act constitutes the initial document in the University’s disciplinary procedure, the purpose of which is to record the occurrence of the incident, the persons involved, and the circumstances established.

The preparation of the act itself does not constitute a decision to expel a student.

On the contrary, on the basis of the act, the relevant materials are reviewed, the student is given an opportunity to state his position, and the disciplinary procedure is carried out.

In the present case, following the preparation of the act concerning STK, the matter was not immediately resolved by issuing an expulsion order. The materials were submitted for consideration by the Disciplinary Council, and the student was given an opportunity to provide explanations concerning the circumstances of the case.

Therefore, the University’s actions were aimed not at imposing disciplinary liability on the student in advance, but at recording the incident, reviewing it, and obtaining the student’s explanation.

Accordingly, it is incorrect to assess the legal significance of the act separately from the subsequent disciplinary procedure.

4. The decision to expel the Plaintiff from the University was based not only on the use of a telephone, but also on a combination of several independent disciplinary violations

In addition to the violation of academic integrity requirements during the examination, circumstances relating to an offer of a bribe to University employees were established in respect of STK.

These circumstances were reflected in official memoranda prepared by employees of the Educational Process Quality Inspection Group and brought to the attention of the University’s management.

On the basis of these materials, a meeting of the Disciplinary Council was held, at which STK was given an opportunity to provide explanations regarding the incident.

This served as the basis for the issuance of University Order No. 489-с/жс dated 15 April 2025.

The court of first instance, without establishing any material violation of the procedure for its adoption or the absence of grounds for expulsion provided for by the Agreement and the internal regulations, unreasonably declared the University’s Order unlawful.

On the contrary, the case materials demonstrate that the established disciplinary procedure was duly complied with by the University.

At the same time, the Plaintiff did not challenge the Act on Violation of Academic Integrity, did not challenge the minutes of the Disciplinary Council meeting, and did not raise objections concerning the results of the disciplinary proceedings conducted.

These circumstances are material and could not have been left without legal assessment by the court.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff applied to the court only almost one year after the issuance of the expulsion order, while immediately after its issuance he did not raise any claims regarding the disciplinary procedure or the legality of the decision adopted.

Such prolonged inaction by the Plaintiff and his subsequent application to the court required the court to establish the actual motives for such application and assess the Plaintiff’s good faith.

However, the court of first instance failed to provide these circumstances with an appropriate legal assessment.

Pursuant to paragraph 67 of the Code, it should be emphasized that where a student is expelled from the University for violation of academic integrity, such student does not have the right to be re-admitted to the Non-Profit Joint-Stock Company “Astana Medical University.”

This provision is material for assessing the motives underlying the Plaintiff’s application to the court, since declaring the expulsion order unlawful directly removes the restriction established by the Code on subsequent re-admission to the University.

5. The court failed to provide a proper legal assessment of the circumstances relating to the offer of a bribe to University employees

The court of first instance concluded that conduct of a corrupt nature requires a criminal-law assessment and must be established within the framework of the relevant criminal proceedings.

However, the University does not ask the court to find STK guilty of committing a criminal offence.

The dispute in the present civil proceedings does not concern a determination of criminal liability.

The issue is whether the student’s conduct constitutes a disciplinary offence provided for by the University’s internal regulations and whether such conduct should be taken into account when assessing the legality of the order expelling the student from the University.

The University’s internal regulations classify an attempt by a student to induce officials to accept a bribe for the purpose of obtaining an academic advantage as a gross disciplinary offence incompatible with the status of a student of a medical university, for which expulsion is provided as a disciplinary measure.

Accordingly, the University’s disciplinary procedure does not replace criminal proceedings and does not determine the issue of criminal liability.

For the University, the disciplinary significance of the circumstances lies in whether the student, through his conduct, violated the University’s requirements concerning academic integrity, ethics, and internal discipline.

The case file contains, inter alia:

• official memoranda prepared by employees of the Educational Process Quality Inspection Group concerning the Plaintiff’s attempt to offer a bribe;
• materials of the Disciplinary Council meeting;
• a video recording of the Disciplinary Council meeting;
• the student’s explanations;
• other documents.

The video recording of the Disciplinary Council meeting shows that, when the Plaintiff was asked questions concerning the conduct of a corrupt nature, he answered affirmatively by nodding his head.

The court of first instance failed to provide an appropriate legal assessment of this video recording and the official memoranda.

These items of evidence should not be regarded as evidence establishing guilt in a criminal case, but rather as evidence relevant to assessing the fact of the student’s violation of the University’s internal disciplinary requirements.

The University submitted sufficient and mutually corroborating evidence confirming that the Plaintiff engaged in actions aimed at offering a bribe to University employees.

The implementation of the unlawful intention was prevented solely due to the timely and coordinated actions of the University employees, who stopped the corrupt conduct.

At the same time, the court of first instance failed to provide an appropriate legal assessment of these circumstances, excluding them from the circumstances relevant to the resolution of the dispute.

Such an approach is inconsistent with the body of evidence examined and also contradicts the principle of zero tolerance for corruption, which presupposes the inadmissibility of justifying or disregarding any actions aimed at committing corruption offences.

Furthermore, the fact that the corrupt conduct was not completed solely because it was timely prevented by University employees cannot be used to the benefit of the person who committed the relevant acts.

On the contrary, these circumstances should have been assessed by the court when determining the nature and degree of seriousness of the disciplinary offence and the legality of the disciplinary measure imposed by the University.

6. Where there were independent grounds for disciplinary liability, the court limited its assessment of the legality of the expulsion order to only one violation

Pursuant to paragraph 3.2 of the Agreement, a student’s violation of the terms of the Agreement and failure to comply with the Academic Integrity Code, the Code of Ethics, and other internal acts of the University constitute grounds for termination of the Agreement with the student and expulsion from the University.

Pursuant to paragraph 2.3.1 of the Agreement, the student is obliged to comply with orders and instructions of the University management, the University Charter, the Internal Regulations, the terms of the Agreement, and other internal documents of the University.

The totality of these provisions directly establishes the student’s obligation to comply with internal regulations and the University’s right to apply disciplinary measures in the event of their violation.

Therefore, the court of first instance should have assessed the legality of the expulsion order not by narrowly interpreting paragraph 56 of the Code, but on the basis of the aggregate of the Agreement, the Academic Integrity Code, the Code of Ethics, the Internal Regulations, and the materials of the disciplinary proceedings.

7. League of Academic Integrity

The University is a member of the League of Academic Integrity, an association of higher and postgraduate education institutions of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The mission of the League is to improve and enhance the quality of education in the country through the promotion and implementation of ten fundamental principles of academic integrity.

Each member of the League ensures the accountability of students for violations of the principles and standards of academic integrity.

This circumstance demonstrates the unconditional high priority publicly declared by the University in the area of ensuring academic integrity.

At the same time, the adoption of a decision directly contrary to the University’s internal regulations and the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan not only calls into question compliance with the principles and procedures established by the University, but also causes significant damage to its business reputation, reputation, and image.

Such actions effectively discredit the academic integrity principles declared by the University and undermine confidence in the objectivity and legality of its decisions.

The present decision also creates an unacceptable precedent for other students, since in the future persons who violate the principles of academic integrity may refer to the court’s findings as grounds for applying only a warning in the event of a first academic violation.

Such an approach undermines the University’s requirements for compliance with academic integrity, creates a risk of developing a practice of selective application of disciplinary measures, and violates the principle of equality of students.

It should be particularly emphasized that such a situation affects the rights and legitimate interests of conscientious students who independently perform academic work solely on the basis of their own knowledge, abilities, and results of their own work.

The application of unjustifiably lenient measures to persons who have violated academic integrity rules creates an obvious injustice towards conscientious students and places them in an unequal position compared with persons who have committed violations.

8. Unreasonably high amount of legal representation expenses

The court of first instance ordered the University to reimburse the Plaintiff KZT 600,000 in expenses for the services of a representative.

However, this amount is clearly disproportionate to the complexity of the present civil case, the actual scope of legal assistance provided, and the nature of the work performed by the representative.

When determining the amount of recoverable expenses, the court should take into account not only the fact of payment for the representative’s services, but also their reasonableness, justification, and proportionality to the amount claimed.

The existence of an agreement with a representative and a document confirming payment does not, in itself, mean that the entire amount claimed should automatically be recovered from the opposing party.

It should be noted that the University is a non-profit organization with 100% state participation in its authorized capital and is financed from the republican budget.

An excessive amount of legal representation expenses results in the unjustified expenditure of budgetary funds.

Thus, the decision of the court of first instance is subject to reversal on the following grounds provided for by Article 427 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, namely:

1. The University issued Order No. 489-с/жс dated 15 April 2025 on the expulsion of the Plaintiff on lawful grounds and in accordance with the established procedure;
2. In view of the grounds asserted by the Plaintiff, he should have directly challenged the Minutes No. 6 of the Disciplinary Council dated 10 April 2025 and/or the Act on Violation dated 31 March 2025;
3. The Plaintiff’s attempt to commit a corruption offence is confirmed by Official Memorandum No. 18-08/52 dated 4 April 2025, as well as by the video recording of the Disciplinary Council meeting;
4. The fact that the Plaintiff used a mobile phone during the examination is not disputed and, in itself, may constitute grounds for expulsion from the University;
5. The Judgment creates an unjustified precedent allowing a person who has violated academic integrity to avoid the consequences provided for by internal regulations, thereby violating the principle of equality of students and restricting the interests of persons who comply in good faith with academic integrity requirements;
6. The court violated the University’s lawful right to independently make decisions on the expulsion of students within the scope of its powers and the established procedures.

Guided by Articles 224, 225, 401, 403, 404, 420, 424 and 427 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as the provisions of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Education” providing for the possibility of applying disciplinary measures for violations of students’ duties,

WHEREFORE, THE COURT IS REQUESTED TO:

1. Grant the appeal of the Non-Profit Joint-Stock Company “Astana Medical University” in full;
2. Reverse in full the Judgment of the Interdistrict Court for Civil Cases of Astana dated 24 July 2026 in civil case No. 7142-26-00-2/14529;
3. Render a new judgment dismissing in full the claims of STK against the Non-Profit Joint-Stock Company “Astana Medical University”.

Respectfully,

Representative of the Defendant under Power of AttorneySigned electronically (EDS)D. M.

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases