Comments to article 106. Exemption from payment of state duty. Postponement of payment of the state fee of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

1. The plaintiff's exemption from payment of the state duty of a claim filed with the court is carried out on the grounds provided for by the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and Other Mandatory Payments to the Budget" (Tax Code).2. If the persons referred to in Articles 54 and 55 of this Code refuse to file a claim against them, the plaintiff in whose interests the claim is filed is obliged to pay the state duty in accordance with the general procedure within the time period established by the court, if he insists on considering the claim and is not exempt from paying the state duty. In this case, the court adjourns the case.In case of non-payment of the state fee, the statement of claim is left without consideration and returned to the plaintiff. The court ruling may be appealed or appealed to the court of appeal, whose decision is final.3. The court on consumer rights protection claims filed by a citizen shall defer payment of the state duty until an appropriate decision is made, on which a ruling is issued. The ruling is not subject to appeal or challenge. Arguments about disagreement with the definition may be included in the appeal. When making a decision, the court awards the costs associated with the payment of the state fee to the party against whom the decision was rendered.

1. Exemption from payment of state duty is possible only in cases expressly provided for in Article 541 of the Tax Code. This list covers a certain category of requirements and a certain category of persons. This list is exhaustive.Since exemption from payment of state duties is possible only by virtue of a direct indication of the law, a special ruling on this is not required.When accepting a statement of claim (complaint), the judge is required to verify the existence of the grounds listed in article 541 of the Tax Code that exempt the plaintiff from paying the state fee, as well as whether persons who have applied to the court to defend the rights and legally protected interests of other persons or the state have the right to file such a claim in accordance with the laws.Statement of claim, which is not accompanied by a document confirming payment of the state fee, in the absence of grounds providing for the plaintiff's exemption from payment, in accordance with Article 152 of the CPC, it is subject to refund.In judicial practice, questions arise regarding the application of certain provisions of the law governing exemption from payment of state duties.For example, according to subparagraph 4) of paragraph 1 of Article 541 of the Tax Code, plaintiffs on alimony claims are exempt from paying state duty in courts.However, some courts misinterpret this provision of the substantive law., because when considering civil cases in which the defendants were the mothers of minors, or statements of claim that simultaneously demanded the establishment of paternity and the recovery of alimony for the maintenance of a child, they are accepted for production and considered with a decision without paying state duty, whereas the law exempts only plaintiffs from paying state duty in a claim for the recovery of alimony.For the purposes of uniform and correct application of the provision given in subparagraph 4) of paragraph 1 of Article 541 of the Tax Code, courts should be guided by the explanation, According to the normative resolution of the Supreme Court No. 7 dated September 30, 1971 "On judicial practice in cases of establishing paternity and the fact of recognition of paternity", a statement of claim for establishing paternity must be paid with a state fee when it is filed with the court and in the case when the statement of claim raises the issue of recovery of alimony.Similarly, for claims for reduction or increase of the amount of alimony, when making decisions on their satisfaction, it is necessary to distinguish the requirement to reduce or increase the amount of alimony from the initial claim for recovery of alimony.

2. Individuals and legal entities who insist on considering a claim and are not exempt from paying state duty, in the event that the persons referred to in Articles 55, 56 of the CPC refuse to file a claim in their interests, are obliged to pay state duty in accordance with the general procedure. If such a situation arose during the consideration of the case, given that the person who filed the claim, as well as the plaintiff himself, enjoy the same procedural rights and obligations, except for the right to conclude an amicable conclusion (Article 55 of the CPC), the courts should be guided by the provisions of Article 152 and subparagraph 4) of paragraph 1 of Article 277 of the CPC2. Individuals and legal entities who insist on considering a claim and are not exempt from paying state duty, in the event that the persons referred to in Articles 55, 56 of the CPC refuse to file a claim in their interests, are obliged to pay state duty in accordance with the general procedure. If such a situatiose during the consideration of the case, given that the person who filed the claim, as well as the plaintiff himself, enjoy the same procedural rights and obligations, except for the right to conclude an amicable conclusion (Article 55 of the CPC), the courts should be guided by the provisions of Article 152 and subparagraph 4) of paragraph 1 of Article 277 of the CPC.3. Until December 13, 2004, the courts, in accordance with the second part of Article 104 of the CPC, had the right, based on the property status of the parties, to exempt one or both parties from paying the state fee levied on state revenue.According to the commented article, the court of consumer protection claims filed by a citizen defers payment of state duties until an appropriate decision is made, which is determined. The ruling is not subject to appeal or challenge. Arguments about disagreement with the definition may be included in the appeal. When making a decision, the court awards the costs associated with the payment of the state fee to the party against whom the decision was rendered.As can be seen, the provision of a deferral from paymen

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