Commentary on Article 669. Failure to Comply with a Court Sentence, Court Decision or Other Judicial Act and an Enforcement Document of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offenses
Failure to comply with a court sentence, court decision or other judicial act and an enforcement document shall entail a fine imposed on individuals in the amount of five monthly calculation indices or administrative arrest for a period of up to five days; on officials, private notaries, private bailiffs, and advocates, in the amount of twenty monthly calculation indices or administrative arrest for up to five days; on small business entities or non-profit organizations, in the amount of thirty monthly calculation indices; on medium-sized business entities, in the amount of forty monthly calculation indices; and on large business entities, in the amount of fifty monthly calculation indices.
According to paragraph 3 of Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan: “Decisions, sentences and other rulings of courts shall be binding throughout the territory of the Republic.”
Every unexecuted judicial act contributes to the emergence of doubts regarding the triumph of justice and the effectiveness of the entire judicial system.
For failure to comply with a judicial act and the requirements of a judge, a debtor or a convicted person may be held administratively or criminally liable.
However, despite the above-mentioned constitutional provisions concerning the binding nature of judicial acts and liability for failure to comply with them, many court decisions and sentences remain unenforced for years.
The general object of the offense is the established procedure for ensuring the functioning of state power institutions.
The generic object of the administrative offense is the public relations arising in connection with compliance with the rules governing the execution of a court sentence, court decision or other judicial act and an enforcement document.
The Constitutional Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the Judicial System and Status of Judges of the Republic of Kazakhstan” states that “Judicial power in the Republic of Kazakhstan belongs exclusively to courts represented by permanent judges, as well as jurors…”
The article under commentary is formulated as a general provision establishing liability for failure to comply with a court sentence, a judge’s decision or another judicial act and an enforcement document in all types of judicial proceedings: civil, administrative and criminal.
According to Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 20, 2018, “On the Court Sentence,” a court sentence is the most important act of the application of law, which summarizes all proceedings previously conducted in a criminal case. By virtue of constitutional provisions, a sentence is delivered in the name of the Republic of Kazakhstan and must be lawful and well-founded.
A sentence is a decision in a criminal case delivered in the name of the Republic of Kazakhstan at a court hearing by a court of first instance or an appellate court on the question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence and on whether criminal punishment should or should not be imposed on that person, in compliance with the principles of justice.
Judicial acts are understood to include court decisions, including default judgments, as well as court orders, rulings approving settlement agreements, and decisions of appellate, cassation or supervisory courts. (On Certain Issues Concerning the Enforcement of Judicial Acts in Civil Cases. Regulatory Resolution No. 6 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 29, 2009.)
A judicial decision is traditionally considered in two senses:
- the actions of a court aimed at concluding judicial proceedings and summarizing their results;
- a document issued by a judicial body containing the outcome of the resolution of a dispute on its merits.
Pursuant to Regulatory Resolution No. 5 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 11, 2003, “On the Court Decision,” judicial acts that have entered into legal force, as well as orders, demands, instructions, summonses, requests and other communications issued by courts and judges in the administration of justice, are binding on all state bodies, local self-government bodies, legal entities, officials and citizens and are subject to enforcement throughout the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Liability for Malicious Failure to Comply with Judicial Acts” explains that, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Articles 127 and 472 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, and Article 884 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offenses, sentences, decisions, rulings, determinations and orders that have entered into legal force, as well as lawful orders, demands, instructions, summonses and other communications issued by courts and judges in connection with the enforcement of judicial acts, are binding on all state bodies, officials, local self-government bodies, public associations, other legal entities and citizens and must be strictly enforced throughout the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Malicious failure to comply with a court sentence, court decision or other judicial act that has entered into legal force, as well as obstruction of their enforcement, and failure to comply with judicial acts or decisions of bodies (officials) authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses, entail criminal or administrative liability as provided for by law.
The absence of a debtor’s actual ability to comply with a judicial act in a certain part or in its entirety precludes the possibility of holding that person administratively or criminally liable.
The objective element of the offense is expressed in the form of omission.
The Criminal Code contains a competing provision to the article under commentary, namely Article 430, “Failure to Comply with a Court Sentence, Court Decision or Other Judicial Act or an Enforcement Document.” Under Part 1 of this article, a qualifying element of the act is failure to comply for a period exceeding six months, as well as obstruction of enforcement. However, the article under commentary does not contain the wording “… if the act does not contain the elements of a criminal offense.” Consequently, problems may arise in law enforcement practice regarding the legal classification of the act.
The subjects of administrative offenses related to failure to comply with judicial acts are expressly specified in the sanction of the article. They may include individuals; officials; private notaries; private bailiffs; small business entities or non-profit organizations; medium-sized business entities; and large business entities.
Only those persons who, by virtue of a sentence, decision or other judicial act, are required to perform certain actions during enforcement proceedings may be held criminally liable for malicious failure to comply with a judicial act or for obstructing its enforcement.
With respect to other persons who commit acts obstructing the enforcement of a judicial act, criminal prosecution may be initiated under the relevant articles of the Criminal Code providing for liability for encroachment on the life and health of a bailiff, defamation, threats to kill or cause harm, and other acts.
The subjective element of the administrative offense may be expressed only in the form of intentional guilt. The person has been informed of the court sentence, court decision or other judicial act and enforcement document but ignores it and continues to engage in such conduct.
Protocols on administrative offenses are drawn up by state bailiffs (subparagraph 56 of paragraph 1 of Article 804), as well as by officials of internal affairs bodies (subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1 of Article 804).
Cases of administrative offenses are considered by judges of specialized district administrative courts and equivalent courts (Article 684).
In 2018, 6,422 decisions imposing administrative liability under this article were issued in the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Scientific and Practical Commentary on the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offenses (Article-by-Article Commentary), prepared by the team of authors:
Bachurin Sergey Nikolaevich, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor – Chapter 48 (co-authored with Khakimov E. M.);
Gabdualiyev Mereke Terekovich, Candidate of Legal Sciences – Chapters 11, 21, 22, 23;
Zhusipbekova Ainur Maratovna, Master of Law – Chapter 13 (co-authored with Karpekin A. V.); Chapters 33 and 39 (co-authored with Seitjanov O. T.);
Karpekin Alexander Vladimirovich, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor – Chapter 13 (co-authored with Zhusipbekova A. M.);
Korneychuk Sergey Vasilievich – Chapter 2; Chapter 6 (co-authored with Seitjanov O. T. and Khakimov E. M.); Chapter 8; Chapter 25 (co-authored with Khakimov E. M.); Articles 457–470, 488, 488-1, 491–506; Chapters 28, 30 and 52;
Koryakin Ilya Petrovich, Doctor of Legal Sciences, Professor – Chapter 49;
Kysykova Gulnara Bauyrzhanovna, Candidate of Legal Sciences – Chapter 20;
Omarova Botagoz Akimgereevna – Chapter 17; Chapter 18 (co-authored with Parmankulova B. A.); Chapters 26 and 31; Chapter 32 (co-authored with Parmankulova B. A.);
Parmankulova Bayan Askhanbaevna – Chapter 18 (co-authored with Omarova B. A.); Chapter 19; Chapter 32 (co-authored with Omarova B. A.); Chapter 43 (co-authored with Tukiev A. S.);
Podoprigora Roman Anatolyevich, Doctor of Legal Sciences, Professor – Chapter 24, Articles 489, 489-1 and 490;
Porokhov Evgeny Viktorovich, Doctor of Legal Sciences – Chapters 14, 15, 16 and 29, Articles 471–475;
Seitjanov Olzhas Temirzhanovich, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor – Chapter 4; Chapter 5 (co-authored with Khakimov E. M.); Chapter 6 (co-authored with Korneychuk S. V. and Khakimov E. M.); Chapter 9; Chapter 10 (co-authored with Shaimerdenov B. E. and Filin V. V.); Chapter 33 (co-authored with Zhusipbekova A. M.); Chapter 36 (co-authored with Shaimerdenov B. E.); Chapter 39 (co-authored with Zhusipbekova A. M.);
Smyshlyaev Alexander Sergeevich, PhD – Chapters 38, 40, 42 and 43-1 (co-authored with Tukiev A. S.); Chapter 44;
Tukiev Aslan Sultanovich, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor – Chapters 1, 3 and 35; Chapters 38, 40 and 42 (co-authored with Smyshlyaev A. S.); Chapter 43 (co-authored with Parmankulova B. A.); Chapter 43-1 (co-authored with Smyshlyaev A. S.); Chapter 44-1 (co-authored with Shipp D. A.); Chapter 45; Chapter 46 (co-authored with Shipp D. A.); Chapter 47;
Filin Vladimir Vladimirovich, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor – Chapter 10 (co-authored with Seitjanov O. T. and Shaimerdenov B. E.);
Khakimov Erzhan Maratovich, Master of Law – Chapter 5 (co-authored with Seitjanov O. T.); Chapter 6 (co-authored with Seitjanov O. T. and Korneychuk S. V.); Chapter 7; Chapter 25 (co-authored with Korneychuk S. V.); Chapters 34 and 41; Chapter 48 (co-authored with Bachurin S. N.); Chapter 53;
Shaimerdenov Bolat Erkenovich, Master of Law – Chapter 10 (co-authored with Seitjanov O. T. and Filin V. V.); Chapter 12; Articles 476–487 and 507–509; Chapter 36 (co-authored with Seitjanov O. T.); Chapters 37, 50 and 51;
Shipp Denis Alekseevich – Chapters 44-1 and 46 (co-authored with Tukiev A. S.).
Date of amendment of the act: 01.01.2020
Date of adoption of the act: 01.01.2020
Place of adoption: 100050000000
Body that adopted the act: 103001000000
Region of application: 100000000000
Registration number of the normative legal act assigned by the rule-making body: 5
Status of the act: new
Scope of legal relations: 029000000000 / 028000000000 / 029002000000 / 028004000000 / 029001000000 / 026000000000 / 001000000000 / 001008000000 / 030000000000
Form of the act: COMMENTARY / CODE
Legal force: 1900
Language of the act: Russian
On Administrative Offenses
Entrepreneurial Code
Labor Code
On Taxes and Other Mandatory Payments to the Budget (Tax Code)
On Customs Regulation
On Public Health and the Healthcare System
Environmental
Social
Commentary
Criminal Procedure Code
Criminal Code
Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court
Preserve the original paragraph structureRestore omitted source wording exactly
Constitution Law Code Standard Decree Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases Declaration Decree Order Resolution Decision Report Conclusion Statement Conclusion Convention Contract Memorandum Methodology Norms Note Rules Program Charter Charter Article Commentary Resolution Regulations Protocol Draft Program Rules Messages
