Comments on Article 167. Connection and separation of several claims of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

1. A judge shall separate one or more of the claims joined by the plaintiff into separate proceedings if separate consideration of the claims would be more appropriate.

2. When several plaintiffs or several defendants present claims, the judge has the right to separate one or more claims into separate proceedings if he considers it more appropriate to consider the claims separately.

3. A judge, having established that there are several homogeneous cases in the proceedings of this court involving the same parties, or several cases involving claims by one plaintiff against different defendants or different plaintiffs against the same defendant, has the right to combine these cases at his discretion or at the request of the parties into one proceeding for joint consideration, if it recognizes that such an association would be appropriate.

4. The term of consideration of the case after the allocation of one claim from another is calculated from the date of completion of the preparation of the case for trial on the allocated claim.The term of consideration of the case after the cases are combined into one proceeding is calculated from the date of completion of the preparation of the case for trial at the request stated earlier.

5. A ruling on the connection or separation of several claims is not subject to appeal or challenge. Arguments about disagreement with the definition may be indicated in the appeal.

1. The court performs the actions set out in the commented norm to separate one or more of the claims joined by the plaintiff into separate proceedings at the stage of preparing the case for trial.For example, if the claims for establishing the fact of ownership of the workbook and for collecting wages under the employment contract are filed simultaneously in one lawsuit. The plaintiff believes that they are connected by one subject - the workbook, the affiliation of which is established due to the distortion of personal data, and the collection of wages is based on the employment relationship reflected in the workbook. Consideration of the above-mentioned claims of each in a separate proceeding is dictated by the procedural grounds for making such claims, the procedure for their consideration, the different range of subjects of the civil procedural legal relations that have arisen, as well as the application of different legal norms in resolving the case. Another example is when the claims for the dissolution of a marriage are filed together with the claim for the recovery of alimony in one proceeding. It is clear that the case can be considered in one proceeding and the legislation regulating marriage and family relations is applied. However, consideration of these claims in separate proceedings is advisable and better for the plaintiff. The requirement for the recovery of alimony involves their consideration within three days with the issuance of an order without summoning the parties, rather than the first requirement, for which it is possible to postpone the proceedings in the case due to the provision of time for possible reconciliation to the parties.

2. If several plaintiffs or several defendants present claims, the judge has the right to separate one or more claims into separate proceedings if he considers it more appropriate to consider the claims separately.

3. The commented norm establishes the right of the court, at its discretion or at the request of the parties, to combine homogeneous cases into one proceeding: involving the same parties, claims by one plaintiff against different defendants, different plaintiffs against the same defendant for joint consideration, if it recognizes that such a combination would be appropriate.For example, cases concerning the recovery of wages in claims by employees against an organization, enterprise, or organization, enterprise against employees for compensation for material damage on similar grounds and the subject of the claim., when the same parties or multiple accomplices are involved on the side of the plaintiff or the defendant. Such an association is advisable for procedural economy, ensuring a unified practice of applying the law, reducing court costs associated with summoning the parties, etc.Combining several claims into one proceeding is possible only in cases where, by the nature of the claims in their interrelation and by the availability of common evidence, it is possible for a faster and more correct resolution of all the claimed claims in one proceeding.Each of the plaintiffs or defendants acts independently in relation to the other party. The parties may assign the case to one of the plaintiffs or one of the plaintiffs or co-defendants, respectively.

4. The term of consideration of the case after the allocation of one claim from another is calculated from the date of completion of the preparation of the case for trial on the allocated claim. The time limit for consideration of a case from which another claim is singled out is calculated according to the general rules from the moment the statement of claim is received by the court on this claim.The term of consideration of the case after combining the cases into one proceeding is calculated from the date of completion of the preparation of the case for trial at the request stated earlier.Such requirements are based on the fact that a judge, when preparing a case for trial, must promptly resolve such petitions if they are filed in order to prevent further red tape in the case. This corresponds to the purpose of combining cases - the possibility of a faster and more correct resolution of all stated claims in one proceeding based on the common interests of the procedural accomplices on one side and the availability of common evidence.

5. A ruling on the connection or separation of several claims is not subject to appeal or challenge. Arguments about disagreement with the definition may be indicated in the appeal. Such provisions also correspond to the goal of speeding up the process of restoring violated rights and preventing red tape in the case.

LIBRARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN

Astana, 2016

UDC 347 (574)  

By 63

ISBN 978-601-236-042-4

 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