Disputes related to the enforcement of decisions of foreign courts, the non-jurisdiction of the dispute to a foreign court entails a refusal to issue a writ of execution.

Z. He worked as a miner of the sewage treatment plant at the Tentekskayanaklonnaya mine No. 1/2 in Shakhtinsk, Karaganda region (Lenin mine). On April 26, 1967, an accident occurred, Z. was injured in the performance of his work duties (compression fracture of 1-2 vertebrae, contusion of the spinal cord). Z. was treated for a long time, in 2004 he underwent an examination. The ITU report established 30% loss of professional disability. In 2007, Z. He filed a lawsuit against JSC "M", the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan for damages. The claim was satisfied by the decision of the Temirtau City Court of the Karaganda region dated October 5, 2007. From the republican budget in favor of Z. 348,532 tenge was collected at a time, as well as monthly payments in the amount of 10,566 tenge. The same court indexed the recovered amount on October 9, 2009. According to an extract from the certificate of examination dated June 9, 2012 at Z. the degree of professional disability has been changed from 30% to 60% indefinitely. In this connection, Z. applied at his place of residence to the Pestrechinsky District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan of the Russian Federation with a claim to the Ministries of Finance, Labor and Social Protection of the Population, Health and Social Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan for compensation for damage caused by labor injury. By the decision of the Pestrechinsky District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated March 31, 2016, it was decided to satisfy the requirements. From the republican budget of the Republic of Kazakhstan in favor of Z. It was decided to collect monthly health compensation payments in the amount of 8,3416 tenge, starting from June 6, 2012 indefinitely, with subsequent indexation.

Disputes related to the enforcement of decisions of foreign courts, the non-jurisdiction of the dispute to a foreign court entails a refusal to issue a writ of execution.

The collection was decided to be carried out with the offset of the paid Z. monetary amounts according to the decisions of the Temirtau City Court of the Karaganda region dated October 5, 2007 and October 9, 2009. Z. appealed to the court with a petition for recognition and enforcement of this decision on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. By the ruling of the Esil District Court of Astana dated June 15, 2017, which was left unchanged by the ruling of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Astana City Court dated July 25, 2017, the petition of Z. satisfied. The court decided to recognize and enforce on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan the decision of the Pestrechinsky District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated March 31, 2016. The Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court restored the deadline for bringing a protest and annulled the judicial acts of the local courts, and issued a new decision in the case to dismiss Z.'s petition. on the recognition and enforcement in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan of the decision of the Pestrechinsky District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan of the Russian Federation dated March 31, 2016 on the following grounds. Satisfying the petition of Z. on the recognition and enforcement in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan of the decision of the Pestrechinsky District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan of the Russian Federation dated March 31, 2016 on recovery from the republican budget of the Republic of Kazakhstan in favor of Z. compensation for damage caused by injury in the form of monthly payments, local courts, guided by the provisions of Articles 51, 54 of the Minsk Convention, concluded that that the conditions stipulated by the provisions of this Convention have been met by the applicant, therefore, the application must be satisfied.

Disputes related to the enforcement of decisions of foreign courts, the non-jurisdiction of the dispute to a foreign court entails a refusal to issue a writ of execution.

At the same time, this position of the local courts is not based on the norms of the law, which entails the cancellation of judicial acts in the case on the following grounds. According to part 2 of Article 66 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), the circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case are determined by the court on the basis of the claims and objections of the parties and other persons involved in the case, taking into account the applicable norms of substantive and procedural law, which in this case was not done by the court. On March 31, 2016, the Pestrechinsky District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan ordered the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Kazakhstan to monthly charge and pay compensation to the plaintiff for health damage caused by an occupational disease. At the same time, the court proceeded from the fact that the decision of the Temirtau City Court of October 5, 2007 established the responsibility of the Republic of Kazakhstan to Z. for causing harm to health. Under the agreement dated June 28, 1996, JSC "I" (JSC "M") acquired the property complex of coal mines free from all encumbrances of any kind. The state – seller of the Lenin mine, without transferring the obligations of the mine, is responsible to Z. in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 945 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code). By virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 945 of the Civil Code, in cases where the capitalization of payments cannot be made due to the absence or insufficiency of property of the liquidated legal entity, the amounts awarded are paid to the injured State in accordance with the procedure provided for by legislative acts. In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the Civil Code, public authorities and authorities of the Republic act on behalf of the Republic of Kazakhstan in relations regulated by civil law, within the competence established by legislative and other regulatory legal acts, which by their actions acquire and exercise property and personal non-property rights and obligations, and participate in court. Thus, in the event of the employer's liquidation, the State, the Republic of Kazakhstan, represented by the authorized state body of the Administrator of the budget program, the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Population, acts as a defendant in claims for damages.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 1102 of the Civil Code, in civil law relations with a foreign element, the Republic of Kazakhstan enjoys jurisdictional immunity in respect of itself and its property from the jurisdiction of courts of another State, including judicial immunity, immunity from enforcement of a claim and immunity from enforcement of a judicial act, unless otherwise specified in an international treaty of the Republic of Kazakhstan; in a written agreement that is not an international agreement of the Republic of Kazakhstan; by way of a statement in court or a written notification in the framework of a specific proceeding. According to article 8 of the Agreement, the court of the party in whose territory the action that gave rise to the claim for damages took place, or the court of the party in whose territory the persons entitled to damages reside, at the choice of the victim, is competent in cases provided for in the said Agreement. However, based on the meaning of the Agreement, this provision applies only to cases involving the recovery of damages directly from employers (article 2). According to article 7 of the Agreement, "in the event of liquidation of an enterprise responsible for harm caused to employees and the absence of its legal successor, the party in whose territory the enterprise is liquidated guarantees compensation for harm to these employees in accordance with national legislation." These guarantees relate to the obligations of the party to the Agreement, but do not regulate the issue of the jurisdiction of courts of foreign States. By signing and ratifying the Agreement, the Republic of Kazakhstan did not waive judicial immunity in respect of courts of other countries participating in the Agreement, including the Russian Federation, and did not consent to be involved as a defendant in cases considered by Russian courts regarding compensation for damage specified in article 1 of the Agreement. The Convention also does not establish the waiver of judicial immunity by the Republic of Kazakhstan in respect of cases considered by the courts of the Russian Federation in which the Republic of Kazakhstan is the defendant.

In addition, in accordance with article 2, 5 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (New York, December 2, 2004), ratified by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 27, 2009 No. 195-IV, the Convention applies to the immunity of a State and its property from the jurisdiction of courts of another State. states. A State shall enjoy immunity in respect of itself and its property from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State, subject to the provisions of this Convention. In accordance with Article 55 of the Minsk Convention, recognition of decisions provided for in Article 52 and the granting of permission for enforcement may be refused in cases where: according to the provisions of this Convention, and in cases not provided for by it, according to the legislation of the Contracting Party in whose territory the decision is to be recognized and enforced, the case belongs to the exclusive the competence of its institution.  By virtue of Article 504, paragraph 2 of paragraph 1) of Part 1 of Article 255 of the CPC, the non-jurisdiction of the dispute to a foreign court entails a refusal to issue a writ of execution. Due to the fact that this case belongs to the exclusive competence of the institution of justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the issuance of a permit for the execution of a foreign court decision on the territory of Kazakhstan should be refused. 

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