Challenging actions (inaction) and decisions of state bodies in the field of investments

   Jurisdiction.

According to Article 27 of the CPC, the Astana City Court hears and resolves civil cases on investment disputes in which investors with an investment amount of less than two million times the monthly calculation index (that is, not large investors) are parties, as well as other disputes between investors and government agencies related to the investor's investment activities.

The category of "other disputes between investors and government agencies related to the investor's investment activities" includes disputes related to:

1) actions of state bodies violating the rights and interests of investors provided for by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

2) with the actions of investors violating the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the field of investments.

An approximate list of such disputes:

- disputes about the admission of an investor to carry out investment activities;

- disputes on the recognition of illegal actions (inaction) of government officials who violate the investor's rights (in the field of licensing, compliance with environmental legislation, taxation, compliance with industrial safety rules, etc.), that is, these are disputes not related to the fulfillment of obligations under the investment agreement;

- disputes about the recovery by the state body of amounts of taxes and other mandatory payments to the budget from the investor, customs payments accrued according to the general rules of the tax legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, i.e. not related to the provision of tax benefits and targeted preferences;

- disputes about the forced seizure of investor's property (nationalization, requisition) for state needs and compensation for losses;

- disputes related to the compensation of damage to an investor as a result of the issuance by state bodies of acts that do not comply with the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan;  

- other disputes between government agencies and investors that are not related to the fulfillment of obligations established by the investment agreement.

When defining approaches to the concept of "investment disputes", it should be noted that tax, customs, environmental and other public law disputes involving them that are not related to the fulfillment of contractual obligations belong to the category of "other disputes related to the investor's investment activities", within the jurisdiction of the Astana City Court.

The burden of proving the jurisdiction of the case to the Astana City Court, the status of the investor and categorization as "investment disputes" or "other disputes related to the investor's investment activities" lies with the applicant (investor or authorized state body).

The statements of claim must provide a detailed justification for the category of dispute (investment dispute or other dispute related to investment activities) and the jurisdiction of the case, as well as provide specific information about the relationship of the dispute to investment activities.

The absence of the specified information and the above documents in accordance with subparagraph 2) of paragraph 1 of Article 152 of the CPC entails the return of the filed statement of claim (application) with all attached documents.

Definition of the legal relations of the parties and the law to be followed.

The subject of the dispute is the recognition of illegal decisions (actions) of inaction of state bodies made in violation of the rights and legitimate interests of investors provided for by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan or actions (inaction) of an investor that violate the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Cases on appeal by an investor against decisions, actions (omissions) of government bodies and their officials are subject to consideration in accordance with Chapter 29 of the CPC. Accordingly, special attention should be paid to the parties' compliance with the mandatory pre-trial dispute settlement procedure and the time limits for appealing such decisions (actions) and omissions established by separate legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Subparagraph 6) of the second part of Article 293 of the CPC establishes that, in accordance with Chapter 29 of the CPC, decisions, actions (inaction) of state bodies, local governments, public associations, organizations, officials, and civil servants cannot be challenged in court, subject to court review in accordance with the procedure established by the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure. about administrative offenses.

In accordance with article 65 of the Law "On Legal Acts", a legal act of individual application comes into force from the moment of adoption, unless a later date is specified in it. A legal act shall cease to be effective upon the fulfillment of its requirements or the instructions contained therein by the persons to whom the legal act is addressed.

If, based on the results of an order, instruction, or submission by an authorized state body, an administrative offense case has been initiated against the investor or the materials have been sent to the criminal prosecution authorities to initiate criminal proceedings, the investor's application for appealing decisions, actions (omissions) is not subject to consideration in civil proceedings. An assessment of the legality and validity of decisions, actions (inaction) should be given as part of the consideration of an administrative offense case or a criminal case. The courts of first instance should terminate the proceedings in such cases on the basis of subparagraph 1) of Article 277 of the CPC.

1) The persons participating in the case are the investor and the authorized state body and (or) an official.

2) Facts to be established and proved. Evidence and proof.

Depending on the category of the case, the disputed fact in such cases that must be proved is the fact that the investor or a government agency violated the norms of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in relation to the investor in certain areas of activity (in the field of licensing, compliance with environmental, land legislation, taxation, compliance with industrial safety rules, etc.).  

1.3.1. On the recognition of illegal actions of the state environmental inspector to conduct an unscheduled, thematic inspection, to issue an act on the results of the inspection on compliance with environmental legislation and instructions on the elimination of violations of environmental legislation.

In this category of cases, at the stage of accepting an application for court proceedings and initiating a civil case, and after and in the preparatory part of the process, it is proposed to clarify the issue of the applicant's preliminary complaint to a higher state body or official against decisions, actions (inaction) of officials exercising state environmental control, the procedure for which is provided for in Article 126 of the Environmental Code of the Russian Federation. the code.

If the applicant does not comply with such an appeal (challenge) procedure, the judge must resolve the issue of returning the application on the basis of subparagraph 1) of the first part of Article 152 of the CPC or leaving the application without consideration at the stage of preparing the case for trial on the basis of subparagraph 1) of Article 279, part one of Article 168, part eight of Article 172 of the CPC due to compliance with the pre-trial dispute settlement procedure established by law for this category of cases and not loss of this possibility of applying this procedure.

1.3.2. On declaring illegal and canceling the notification of corporate income tax, excess profit tax, mining tax, commercial discovery bonus and penalties.

When preparing and considering cases of this category, the judge should find out whether the notification was issued as a result of desk control or as a result of a tax audit. If as a result of desk control, it is necessary to find out whether the notification has been executed in accordance with Article 587 of the Tax Code.

1.3.3. On the recognition as illegal and cancellation of orders of the state body for regulation of natural monopolies and protection of competition on the approval of the conclusion on the results of the investigation of violations of antimonopoly legislation.

When preparing and considering cases of this category, the judge must take into account that, according to article 6, subparagraph 3) of Article 10 of the Law "On Natural Monopolies", actions (omissions), as well as decisions of the authorized body in the field of natural monopolies specified in Article 18-7 of this Law, including an order to the subject, are subject to judicial review. on elimination of the revealed facts of violation of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on natural monopolies and regulated markets.

1.3.4. On the recovery of the amount of the economic assessment of damage for environmental pollution.

During the preparation of the case for trial, the court needs to find out whether there is an economic assessment of the damage caused to the environment, confirming the cost expression of the costs necessary to restore the environment and consumer properties of natural resources, established by officials of the authorized body in the field of environmental protection in accordance with Article 108 of the Environmental Code.

When disputing the amount of the economic assessment of damage for environmental pollution by the persons involved in the case, the judge should proceed from the Rules of Economic Assessment of Damage from Environmental Pollution approved by Government Decree (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of Economic Assessment of Damage from Environmental Pollution.

Example 1.

A large investor, T LLP, filed a court application to appeal the actions of the state environmental inspector to conduct an unscheduled, thematic inspection based on the act on the appointment of an inspection, to issue an act on the results of an inspection on compliance with environmental legislation and an order to eliminate violations of environmental legislation dated September 27, 2016. The requirements are motivated by the fact that procedural violations were committed during the inspection by the state inspector, in particular, the timing of the inspection was violated. In violation of article 148 of the Business Code, the notice of suspension of the inspection was sent one day later, and the act on extending the inspection period dated August 17, 2016 did not specify the reason for the extension.

Accepting the case for consideration under the rules of the court of first instance, the Astana City Court proceeded from the fact that the party to the case is a large investor engaged in subsurface use activities on the basis of an Agreement concluded between the Republic of Kazakhstan and T LLP. The dispute arose as a result of an audit of the investor's activities to comply with the environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

In rejecting the application, the court proceeded from the fact that the actions of the state inspector to issue an act on the results of the inspection and the instructions were carried out within the limits of the powers provided for by the current legislation, in compliance with the requirements regulated by the Business Code for the procedure, procedure and timing of the inspection.

By virtue of the requirements of Article 156 of the Business Code, an inspection is considered invalid if the inspection conducted by the control and supervision body was carried out in gross violation of the requirements for the organization and conduct of inspections established by  The Business Code. The list of gross violations specified in article 156 of the Business Code is exhaustive. The applicant's arguments about the official's violation of the terms of the audit provided for in article 148 of the Business Code have not been confirmed.

It follows from the act on the appointment of the audit dated June 8, 2016, that the deadline for its conduct is set from June 8 to July 20, 2016. Based on the Act on suspension of the audit No. 111 dated July 20, 2016, the audit period was suspended from July 20 to August 18, 2016, i.e. it does not exceed the one-month period established by Article 148 of the Business Code. The notification of the suspension of the audit was sent to the partnership by cover letter No. 04-07/2004 dated July 19, 2016 by fax and is listed as completed on the same day at 18.18 hours, that is, the deadlines set by the Business Code for sending the notification – one day before the suspension of the audit – have been met.

The applicant's arguments about receiving a fax notification only on July 20, 2016 at 10.16 a.m. due to a data transmission failure due to a technical reason do not affect the overall duration of the inspection, since they cannot be blamed on the state inspector.

By Act No. 111 dated August 17, 2016, the audit was resumed, and notification No. 04-07/2322 dated August 16, 2016 was faxed to the partnership on the same day at 4:14 p.m., also one day before the resumption. By Act No. 111 of August 17, 2016, the deadline for conducting the audit was extended for the period from August 17, 2016 to September 27, 2016 inclusive, that is, the extension period does not exceed thirty working days established by Article 148 of the Business Code. The act does not specify the reason for the extension of the verification period, however, this circumstance is not an independent basis for invalidating the audit. Moreover, the act on changing the composition of the audit participants dated September 9, 2016 confirms that the reason for extending the audit period was the need to conduct additional research with the involvement of a new specialist.

All of the above acts have been registered with the bodies of legal statistics and special accounting.

Thus, the rights and legitimate interests of the investor were not violated during the audit of compliance with environmental legislation.  

Example 2.

The Republican state institution "Department of Ecology for Atyrau region of the Committee for Environmental Regulation and Control of the Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as the Department of Ecology for Atyrau region) filed a lawsuit against M LLP to recover the amount of economic damage assessment in the amount of 2,190,741 tenge to the state revenue. The requirements are motivated by the fact that, based on the submission of the specialized environmental prosecutor's Office of Atyrau region, an unscheduled audit of the investor's activities on compliance with the environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan was conducted. As a result of the inspection, it was established that in 2014 and 2015, due to equipment shutdowns at the partnership's production facilities, gas was flared, the emissions from which were not provided for in the draft standards for maximum permissible emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere for the partnership's facilities for 2013-2015 and the state environmental assessment report issued to it. December 28, 2012, as well as a permit for emissions into the environment dated December 29, 2012. The volume, type, date and time of the burned gas are confirmed by the inspection results act dated April 26, 2016. The damage was calculated in accordance with the Rules of Economic Assessment of damage from environmental pollution by the indirect method and was determined in the amount of 2,190,741 tenge.

Accepting the case for consideration under the rules of the court of first instance, the Astana City Court proceeded from the fact that the defendant in the case is an investor engaged in subsurface use activities on the basis of a contract concluded with the Investment Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The dispute arose as a result of an audit of the investor's activities to comply with the environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the latter's failure to comply with the order dated May 11, 2016 on compensation for economic damage assessment.

Satisfying the requirements of the state body, the court, referring to article 69 of the Environmental Code, proceeded from the fact that the issued emission permit gave the partnership the right to emit pollutants in volumes not exceeding 74,361,8750 in 2014 and 74,206,1681 tons in 2015. The amount of emissions specified in the emission permit is provided for by the Draft Standards of Maximum Permissible Emissions (MPI) of pollutants for the partnership's facilities for 2013-2015, which passed the state environmental assessment on December 28, 2012. Emissions of pollutants from the combustion of crude gas in flares are not provided for in the maximum Permissible concentration of pollutants, since according to the Methodology for Determining Environmental Emission Standards approved by the order of the Minister of Environmental Protection, accidental emissions are not regulated. It follows from the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 85 of the Law "On Subsoil and Subsoil Use" that the legislation provides for the possibility of flaring gas in certain situations. At the same time, the emissions of pollutants from such gas combustion are not included in the regulations allowed for emissions into the environment dated December 29, 2012. For carrying out emissions into the environment without a permit, a protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up against the partnership under article 328 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and an order dated April 27, 2016 was issued to eliminate violations of environmental legislation, which was not challenged by the defendant. In accordance with article 110 of the Environmental Code, an indirect method is used to assess damage caused to the atmosphere. The Department of Ecology of Atyrau region, based on the formula provided for by the Rules of Economic Assessment of Damage from Environmental Pollution, determined an estimate of damage in the amount of 2,190,741 tenge, which was calculated correctly.

Thus, the fact that the investor violated the norms of the environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan has been confirmed.

Example 3.

A large investor, K Company, appealed to the court with a statement to the State Revenue Agency for the Mangystau region on the recognition of illegal actions, which resulted in the refusal to refund the amount of excess value–added tax (hereinafter referred to as VAT) for the periods 1-3 quarter of 2015, the cancellation of the act of documentary tax audit No. 242 dated 8 February 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the audit report), notification of the results of the tax audit No. 242 dated February 8, 2016, the obligation to take urgent measures to refund the amount of excess VAT in the amount of 856,403 tenge.

The requirements are motivated by the fact that the state body, on the basis of Regulation No. 242 of November 18, 2015, conducted a thematic tax audit to confirm the accuracy of the excess amount of VAT submitted for refund in the declaration for the 3rd quarter of 2015: VAT for the period from January 1 to September 30, 2015. Based on its results, an inspection report was drawn up, on the basis of which the Company was served with notification No. 242 dated February 8, 2016 on the amount of excess VAT attributed over the amount of accrued tax, not confirmed for refund, not payable to the budget, in the amount of 856,403 tenge. The basis for the refusal to refund the excess VAT, the tax authority indicated that part of the foreign exchange earnings from the export contract for the period from the 1st quarter of 2011 to the 4th quarter of 2014 had not been received by second-tier banks in the Republic of Kazakhstan and the excess VAT in the amount of 5,260,588 tenge had not been confirmed based on the results of counter checks. Disagreeing with the results of the audit, the Company filed a complaint with a higher tax authority, the State Revenue Committee of the Ministry of Finance, which, in a letter dated April 12, 2016, refused to consider the complaint due to missing the appeal deadline. Considers the notification illegal.

When accepting the case for consideration under the rules of the court of first instance, the Astana City Court proceeded from the fact that the applicant in the case is an investor – a foreign legal entity represented by a Kazakh branch operating in subsurface use on the basis of a production sharing agreement concluded between the Government and Companies "K", "O" and "P" dated April 10, 1994. The dispute arose as a result of the refusal of the state body to refund to the Company the amount of excess VAT from the budget, carried out in accordance with the general provisions (of the Tax Code).

By refusing to satisfy the investor's claims, the court, guided by subparagraph 1) paragraph 1 of Article 272, paragraph 4 of Article 635 of the Tax Code, proceeded from the fact that the calculation of the share of foreign exchange earnings by the tax authority was made correctly on the basis of the bank's conclusion from the date of commencement of deliveries under the contract to the date of conclusion, which amounted to 0%, taking into account the transfer balance of foreign exchange earnings from previous periods. Notifications based on the results of these inspection reports have not been appealed by the Company. Data from three inspection reports No. 90, No. 164 and No. 242 showed that from January 1, 2011, the date of commencement of deliveries under the contract to September 30, 2015, the date of the end of the declaration period, the Company shipped crude oil in the amount of 811,253 US dollars. According to the conclusion of Citibank Kazakhstan JSC, the total amount of foreign currency proceeds under the contract was transferred to the Company's accounts for the specified period – 152,270 US dollars. Consequently, the foreign exchange earnings from the export of crude oil under the entire contract were not fully credited to the bank accounts of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which was the basis for the refusal to satisfy the requirements.

On the recognition of illegal actions of the state environmental inspector to conduct an unscheduled, thematic inspection, to issue an act on the results of an inspection on compliance with environmental legislation and an order to eliminate violations of environmental legislation (the applicant is a legal entity with the participation of a foreign investor, the defendant is an official of a state body)

List of documents attached to the application

In accordance with the requirements of Article 149 of the CPC, including documents confirming the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases his claims.:

- an investment agreement concluded with a government agency (a contract for subsurface use, an investment contract, a public-private partnership agreement, a concession agreement);

- information from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities on the composition of the founders of the partnership;

- documents confirming the investment activity (work programs and reports on the fulfillment of contractual conditions, investment programs, etc.);

- documents confirming the investor's status: reports on the execution of the investment agreement, consolidated financial statements, reports of audit companies;

- an act on the appointment of an inspection;

- acts on suspension and extension of the verification period;

- report on the results of the audit;

- an order to eliminate violations of environmental legislation;

- permission for emissions into the environment;

- evidence confirming the applicant's compliance with the mandatory pre–trial dispute settlement procedure established by Article 126 of the Environmental Code - a complaint to a higher authority and a decision based on the results of its consideration;

- documents confirming the initiation and bringing of a legal entity to administrative responsibility (if any).

Note:

In accordance with subparagraph 3) According to paragraph 1 of Article 535 of the Tax Code, a state fee in the amount of 500 percent of the monthly calculation index established by the law on the Republican budget and effective on the date of payment of the state fee is charged for applications submitted to the court in cases of special claim proceedings, in particular, complaints about unlawful actions of state bodies and their officials infringing on the rights of legal entities..

According to article 126 of the Environmental Code, an application for decisions, actions (inaction) of officials exercising state environmental control is filed with the court after their appeal to a higher state body or official. In case of non-compliance with the mandatory pre-trial dispute settlement procedure established by the Environmental Code and the possibility of applying such an order, the investor's application by the court of first instance shall be returned on the basis of subparagraph 1) of the first part of Article 152 of the CPC or left without consideration on the basis of subparagraph 1) of Article 279 of the CPC

   Laws to be applied in the consideration and resolution of cases, depending on the subject matter and grounds of the claim

The Constitution.

GK.

GPC.

The Business Code.

The Code "On Taxes and other obligatory payments to the budget".

The Environmental Code.

The Law "On Administrative Procedures"

On declaring illegal and canceling the notification of corporate income tax, excess profit tax, mining tax, commercial discovery bonus and penalties (the applicant is a legal entity with the participation of a foreign investor, the defendant is an authorized state body in the field of state revenue)

List of documents attached to the application

           In accordance with the requirements of Article 149 of the CPC, including documents confirming the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases his claims.:

- an investment agreement concluded with a government agency (a contract for subsurface use, an investment contract, a public-private partnership agreement, a concession agreement);

- information from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities on the composition of the founders of the partnership;

- documents confirming the investment activity (work programs and reports on the fulfillment of contractual conditions, investment programs, etc.);

- documents confirming the investor's status;

- tax returns;

- an order to conduct a comprehensive tax audit of the applicant's activities on the correctness of the calculation and timely payment of taxes and other payments to the budget;

- the act of documentary tax audit of the Department of State Revenue;

- notification of the results of the tax audit;

- the applicant's complaint about the notification of the results of the tax audit submitted to the State Revenue Committee of the Ministry of Finance (if any);

- the decision of the State Revenue Committee of the Ministry of Finance based on the results of consideration of the applicant's complaint (if any).

Note:

In accordance with subparagraph 4) paragraph 1 of Article 535 of the Tax Code establishes the rates of state duty for applications submitted to the court in cases of special claim proceedings, in particular on appeal against notifications of tax audit results: for legal entities – 1 percent of the disputed amount of taxes and other mandatory payments to the budget (including penalties) specified in the notification, but no more 20 thousand monthly calculation indices

     Laws to be applied in the consideration and resolution of cases, depending on the subject matter and grounds of the claim

The Constitution.

GPC.

The Business Code.

The Code "On Taxes and other obligatory payments to the budget".

Order of the Minister of Environmental Protection dated April 16, 2012 No. 110-o "On Approval of the Methodology for Determining Emission Standards into the environment"

On recognition as illegal and cancellation of orders of the state body for regulation of natural monopolies and protection of competition on approval of the conclusion on the results of the investigation of violations of antimonopoly legislation

List of documents attached to the application

           In accordance with the requirements of Article 149 of the CPC, including documents confirming the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases his claims.:

- an investment agreement concluded with a government agency (a contract for subsurface use, an investment contract, a public-private partnership agreement, a concession agreement).

- information from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities on the composition of the founders of the partnership;

- documents confirming the investment activity (work programs and reports on the fulfillment of contractual conditions, investment programs, etc.);

- documents confirming the investor's status;

- an order on the appointment of an investigation into violations of antimonopoly legislation;

- the order approving the conclusion on the results of the investigation of violations of antimonopoly legislation;

- the order approving the conclusion on the results of the investigation of violations of antimonopoly legislation;

- documents confirming the initiation and bringing of a legal entity to administrative responsibility or sending case materials to the criminal prosecution authority for the initiation of a criminal case (if any).

Note:

In accordance with subparagraph 3) According to paragraph 1 of Article 535 of the Tax Code, a state fee in the amount of 500 percent of the monthly calculation index established by the law on the Republican budget and effective on the date of payment of the state fee is charged for applications submitted to the court in cases of special claim proceedings, in particular for complaints about unlawful actions of state bodies and their officials infringing on the rights of legal entities.

   Laws to be applied in the consideration and resolution of cases, depending on the subject matter and grounds of the claim

The Constitution.

GPC.

The Business Code.

The Code "On Taxes and other obligatory payments to the Budget"

Laws:

- "On administrative procedures";

- "On natural monopolies"

    On recovery of the amount of economic assessment of damage for environmental pollution (the plaintiff is an authorized state body, the defendant is an investor)

List of documents attached to the application

           In accordance with the requirements of Article 149 of the CPC, including documents confirming the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases his claims.:

- an investment agreement concluded with a government agency (a contract for subsurface use, an investment contract, a public-private partnership agreement, a concession agreement).

- information from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities on the composition of the founders of the partnership;

- documents confirming the investment activity (work programs and reports on the fulfillment of contractual conditions, investment programs, etc.);

- documents confirming the investor's status;

- an order on the appointment of an investigation into violations of antimonopoly legislation;

- the order approving the conclusion on the results of the investigation of violations of antimonopoly legislation;

- the order approving the conclusion on the results of the investigation of violations of antimonopoly legislation;

- documents confirming the initiation and bringing of a legal entity to administrative responsibility or sending case materials to the criminal prosecution authority for the initiation of a criminal case (if any).

Note:

In accordance with subparagraph 3) According to paragraph 1 of Article 535 of the Tax Code, a state fee in the amount of 500 percent of the monthly calculation index established by the law on the Republican budget and effective on the date of payment of the state fee is charged for applications submitted to the court in cases of special claim proceedings, in particular for complaints about unlawful actions of state bodies and their officials infringing on the rights of legal entities.

   Laws to be applied in the consideration and resolution of cases, depending on the subject matter and grounds of the claim

The Constitution.

GPC.

The Business Code.

The Code "On Taxes and other obligatory payments to the Budget"

Laws:

- "On administrative procedures";

- "On natural monopolies"

    On recovery of the amount of economic assessment of damage for environmental pollution (the plaintiff is an authorized state body, the defendant is an investor)

List of documents attached to the application

           In accordance with the requirements of Article 149 of the CPC, including documents confirming the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases his claims.:

- an investment agreement concluded with a government agency (a contract for subsurface use, an investment contract, a public-private partnership agreement, a concession agreement);

- information from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities on the composition of the founders of the partnership;

- documents confirming the investment activity (work programs and reports on the fulfillment of contractual conditions, investment programs, etc.);

- documents confirming the investor's status;

- an act on the appointment of an unscheduled inspection of the partnership's activities;

- an act based on the results of an environmental compliance check.

- conclusion of the state environmental assessment;

- permission to release into the environment

Laws to be applied in the consideration and resolution of cases, depending on the subject matter and grounds of the claim

The Constitution.

GPC.

The Business Code.

The Environmental Code.

The Law "On Subsoil and Subsoil Use".

Government Decree No. 535 of June 27, 2007 "On Approval of the Rules for the Economic Assessment of Damage from Environmental Pollution"

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