Establishing the fact of work experience.
The most common is to establish the fact of work experience, which is usually necessary for the appointment of pensions, accrual of percentage salary allowances, payment of a lump sum for years of service, etc.
Applicants in cases of establishing the fact of work experience are persons who have reached retirement age, as well as pre-retirement age.
Applications for establishing the fact of work experience are accepted for court proceedings when the applicants submit a reasoned refusal by the authorized body for social protection of the population to accept documents confirming work experience.
As stipulated in article 209 of the Social Code (previously article 14 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Pension Provision in the Republic of Kazakhstan", which became invalid on July 1, 2023), the length of service for calculating pension payments by age is taken into account for the period up to January 1, 1998.
Work experience is confirmed by a work record, and in the absence of a work record or relevant entries in it, it is established on the basis of documents confirming information about the work, or a court decision.
In accordance with article 35 of the Labor Code, a document confirming an employee's employment may be any of the following:: 1) a work record; 2) an employment contract with the employer's mark on the date and basis of its termination; 3) extracts from the employer's acts confirming the emergence and (or) termination of the employment relationship based on the conclusion and (or) termination of the employment contract; 4) extracts from the payroll for employees; 5) a track record (a list of information about the employee's work, work activity), signed and stamped by the employer (if any); 6) extracts from the unified accumulative pension fund on the listed mandatory pension contributions; 7) information from the State Social Insurance Fund on social contributions made; 7-1) a dual training agreement; 8) an archival certificate containing information about the employee's work; 9) a court decision that has entered into legal force to establish a legal fact confirming the existence of an employment relationship.
In the absence of documents on the existing length of service and the impossibility of obtaining them due to the complete liquidation of the institution or enterprise or due to the lack of archival data, the length of service missing for the appointment of a pension may be established on the basis of the testimony of two or more witnesses.
When establishing the length of service based on testimony, it is necessary that the witnesses know the applicant from working with him at the same enterprise or institution and document the fact of their work during the period when they worked with the applicant.
That is, evidence about the work of the witnesses themselves, such as workbooks (certified copies of them), is required to confirm collaboration with the applicant during the relevant period.
Meanwhile, the decision of the Atyrau City Court of September 3, 2024 established the fact of B.K.'s work experience in LLP "X" as a manager in the period from 1991 to 1998.
From the archival certificates submitted to the court, it can be seen that the documents confirming his work at LLP "X" were not received for storage.
In granting the application, the court referred in the decision to the testimony of witnesses N.D. and M.A., however, no documents confirming their joint work with the applicant in LLP "X" during the above period were attached to the case file.
In such circumstances, the court's conclusions that the chronology of labor activity, their coherence and consistency, attest to their reliability, are not proved by the case materials.
Similar violations were committed by the Atyrau City Court when making decisions on a number of similar cases in the analyzed category.
By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 210 of the Social Code, the amount of pension payments by age is calculated based on the average monthly income for any three consecutive years, regardless of work interruptions since January 1, 1998.
In accordance with paragraph 7 of the Rules for Recalculation of the state basic pension Payment scheduled before July 1, 2018, approved by Order No. 17 of the Minister of Labor and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 3, 2017, the period for which mandatory pension contributions were made is taken into account according to information available in the centralized database on the transfer of mandatory pension contributions., as the total number of months for which mandatory pension contributions have been received to accumulative pension funds and (or) a single accumulative pension fund.
In cases of incomplete or late transfer of mandatory pension contributions, the period of mandatory pension contributions is confirmed (depending on their availability in the pension file) by the following documents:
certificate of the amounts of income paid to an individual and made from the income of mandatory pension contributions, indicating the calculated, withheld and transferred amounts of mandatory pension contributions;
certificate of income of lawyers, private bailiffs, private notaries, professional mediators, as well as individual entrepreneurs who made mandatory pension contributions in their favor, heads and members (participants) of peasant or farm farms, issued by the state revenue authority;
certificate confirming the employer's transfer of mandatory pension contributions;
a court decision confirming the period of transfer of mandatory pension contributions.
Within the meaning of this rule, a court decision may confirm the period of transfer of mandatory pension contributions.
At the same time, the analysis also showed that in some cases, the courts unreasonably established the facts of work experience for the period from January 1, 1998.
Thus, the decision of the Atyrau City Court of September 12, 2024 in the case of K.Zh. established the fact of the applicant's work experience as a fisherman on the collective farm named after "A" in the period from June 3, 1979 to November 30, 1981, from July 20, 1983 to 2002, as well as work experience in a production cooperative. the name "A" in the period from 2002 to 2015.
The court's decision did not specify when the kolkhoz was disbanded.
"A" and a production cooperative named "A" was formed. There is no evidence in the case confirming the fact of K.Zh.'s continuous employment from July 20, 1983 to 2002 at the collective farm named after "A". The Court did not take into account that the management of collective farms was abolished due to the transformation of legal entities into other forms of management after the start of privatization in 1991.
From the copies of the documents of the applicant and witness S.Zh. attached to the case, the correctness of which was certified by the judge, it can be seen that the collective farm named "A" was disbanded on December 20, 1996. It is also established that the applicant's employment record contains an entry about his work at the collective farm named after "A" from June 3, 1979 to November 30, 1981 with the seal and signature of an authorized person of the collective farm.
As can be seen, the court did not take into account that the work experience for the period from January 1, 1998 must be confirmed by pension contributions.
Accordingly, there were no legal grounds for establishing the fact of the applicant's work experience for the period after 1 January 1998.
Atyrau City Court established the facts of labor activity of ethnic Kazakhs who arrived in the Republic of Kazakhstan for permanent residence from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Thus, the decision of the Atyrau City Court of May 30, 2024 established the fact of M.M.'s employment as a milkmaid on a farm located at the following address: China, Xinjiang Altai district, Burshyn district, auyl Kostyk, zimovka Zhetiagash, auyl Kostyk, in the period from January 1, 1975 to June 20, 2005 on the basis of Photocopies of the certificate issued by the People's Government of Xinjiang Altai Region dated October 13, 2021.
In the case, there is no evidence of the legalization of the specified certificate, in addition, the certificate contains information about the applicant's work from March 17, 1977 to May 20, 2007.
In her application, the applicant requested to establish the fact of her employment in the period from March 17, 1977 to May 20, 2007, but the court ruled to establish the fact of her employment from January 1, 1975.
There is no evidence in the case confirming the refusal of the authorized state body to the applicant M.M. to accept documents confirming work experience.
Based on similar certificates issued by the Akimat of the Xinjiang-Ili region of the People's Republic of China and the Akimat of the Nylky district of the Xinjiang-Ili region of the People's Republic of China, the Atyrau City Court issued decisions to establish the fact of employment, respectively, M.S., M.M.
Apart from these certificates, no other evidence has been established in the case, which means that this issue can be resolved out of court by authorized state bodies.
The court is obliged to state the operative part of the decision clearly and clearly in order to avoid ambiguities and disputes in the execution of the decision, as required by paragraph 17 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On judicial decisions in civil cases".
However, there are cases of non-compliance with the above requirements of the law.
So, M.K. appealed to the T.Ryskulovsky district court of Zhambyl region with a statement on the establishment of the fact of labor activity for the period from 1993-1999 in the collective farm "Kazakhstan" Lugovsky district of Zhambyl region. By the decision of the T.Ryskulovsky District Court of January 17, 2023, M.K.'s application was satisfied, the court established the fact of employment for the above-mentioned period of time. At the same time, the decision does not specify from which date of 1993 to which date of 1999 the above fact was established.
Moreover, the court did not have any legal grounds for establishing the fact of work experience after January 1, 1998, since from January 1, 1998, the requirement to establish the fact of transfer of pension contributions based on the above requirements of the Social Code was subject to consideration.
Thus, the decision of the Atyrau City Court of September 12, 2024 in the case of K.Zh. established the fact of the applicant's work experience as a fisherman on the collective farm named after "A" in the period from June 3, 1979 to November 30, 1981, from July 20, 1983 to 2002, as well as work experience in a production cooperative. the name "A" in the period from 2002 to 2015.
The court's decision did not specify when the kolkhoz was disbanded.
"A" and a production cooperative named "A" was formed. There is no evidence in the case confirming the fact of K.Zh.'s continuous employment from July 20, 1983 to 2002 at the collective farm named after "A". The Court did not take into account that the management of collective farms was abolished due to the transformation of legal entities into other forms of management after the start of privatization in 1991.
From the copies of the documents of the applicant and witness S.Zh. attached to the case, the correctness of which was certified by the judge, it can be seen that the collective farm named "A" was disbanded on December 20, 1996. It is also established that the applicant's employment record contains an entry about his work at the collective farm named after "A" from June 3, 1979 to November 30, 1981 with the seal and signature of an authorized person of the collective farm.
As can be seen, the court did not take into account that the work experience for the period from January 1, 1998 must be confirmed by pension contributions.
Accordingly, there were no legal grounds for establishing the fact of the applicant's work experience for the period after 1 January 1998.
Atyrau City Court established the facts of labor activity of ethnic Kazakhs who arrived in the Republic of Kazakhstan for permanent residence from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Thus, the decision of the Atyrau City Court of May 30, 2024 established the fact of M.M.'s employment as a milkmaid on a farm located at the following address: China, Xinjiang Altai district, Burshyn district, auyl Kostyk, zimovka Zhetiagash, auyl Kostyk, in the period from January 1, 1975 to June 20, 2005 on the basis of Photocopies of the certificate issued by the People's Government of Xinjiang Altai Region dated October 13, 2021.
In the case, there is no evidence of the legalization of the specified certificate, in addition, the certificate contains information about the applicant's work from March 17, 1977 to May 20, 2007.
In her application, the applicant requested to establish the fact of her employment in the period from March 17, 1977 to May 20, 2007, but the court ruled to establish the fact of her employment from January 1, 1975.
There is no evidence in the case confirming the refusal of the authorized state body to the applicant M.M. to accept documents confirming work experience.
Based on similar certificates issued by the Akimat of the Xinjiang-Ili region of the People's Republic of China and the akimat of the Nylky district of the Xinjiang-Ili region of the People's Republic of China, the Atyrau City Court issued decisions to establish the fact of employment, respectively, M.S., M.M.
Apart from these certificates, no other evidence has been established in the case, which means that this issue can be resolved out of court by authorized state bodies.
The court is obliged to state the operative part of the decision clearly and clearly in order to avoid ambiguities and disputes in the execution of the decision, as required by paragraph 17 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On judicial decisions in civil cases".
However, there are cases of non-compliance with the above requirements of the law.
So, M.K. appealed to the T.Ryskulovsky district court of Zhambyl region with a statement on the establishment of the fact of labor activity for the period from 1993-1999 in the collective farm "Kazakhstan" Lugovsky district of Zhambyl region. By the decision of the T.Ryskulovsky District Court of January 17, 2023, M.K.'s application was satisfied, the court established the fact of employment for the above-mentioned period of time. At the same time, the decision does not specify from which date of 1993 to which date of 1999 the above fact was established.
Moreover, the court did not have any legal grounds for establishing the fact of work experience after January 1, 1998, since from January 1, 1998, the requirement to establish the fact of transfer of pension contributions based on the above requirements of the Social Code was subject to consideration.
The procedure for considering cases of establishing facts of legal significance is regulated by Chapter 32 of the CPC (Articles 305-309).
An application for establishing a fact of legal significance is filed with the court at the applicant's place of residence, with the exception of the fact that there are documents confirming the possession, use and (or) disposal of immovable property, which is filed with the court at the location of the immovable property.
The application must indicate for what purpose the applicant needs to establish this fact, and evidence must be provided confirming the applicant's inability to obtain proper documents or the impossibility of restoring lost documents.
In accordance with Article 305 of the CPC, the court establishes the facts on which the emergence, modification or termination of personal or property rights of citizens or legal entities depends.
The Court considers cases on establishing facts: 1) kinship relations of persons; 2) finding a dependent person; 3) registration of birth, adoption, marriage, divorce and death; 4) recognition of paternity; 5) ownership of title documents (with the exception of military documents, passports, identity cards and certificates issued by civil registration authorities) to a person, whose first name, patronymic or surname indicated in the document does not match the first name, patronymic or surname of this person on the passport or identity card, or birth certificate; 6) the availability of documents confirming the ownership, use and (or) disposal of immovable property, if the applicant had a title document on the ownership of the property, but it is lost, and the specified fact cannot be established out of court; 7) an accident, if it cannot be confirmed in another manner.; 8) death of a person at a certain time under certain circumstances
9) acceptance of the inheritance and the place of opening of the inheritance, if the person performing the notarial acts is unable to issue a certificate of inheritance rights to the applicant due to the absence or insufficiency of the relevant documents necessary to confirm the fact of taking possession of the inheritance property.
Within the meaning of Part 3 of Article 305 of the CPC, other facts may be established on which the emergence, modification or termination of personal or property rights depends, unless otherwise provided for by legislation.
At the same time, the court does not resolve the dispute about the law, it only establishes the fact, which is the basis for further legal action. The established facts may affect the legal status of a person, the accrual of pensions, benefits, inheritance, etc. If such facts are established, if the necessary legal conditions are in place, the court may make a decision that will become the basis for subsequent legal actions or for the emergence of new legal relations.
Based on the above, it can be concluded that the establishment of facts of legal importance is an important procedure in the legal system, and the courts can accept applications and consider them in a separate proceeding, subject to certain criteria.
These include:
1) facts of legal significance affecting the rights and obligations of persons. This means that their establishment should lead to the emergence, modification or termination of the rights of individuals or legal entities. For example, establishing the fact of paternity may affect a child's right to inheritance or to receive social benefits.;
2) the court only establishes a fact (for example, the fact of birth or mutilation), but does not resolve the issue of the rights or obligations of the parties arising from this fact.;
3) if the applicant is unable to obtain the necessary documents to confirm the fact (for example, the loss of a birth certificate, death of a relative, or other causes) in a different manner, the court may consider the case to establish this fact; if there is no special legislative mechanism to establish the fact, the court has the right to establish the fact in a separate proceeding. This is important because the person must exhaust all other possibilities of documenting the fact.
Features of proof
The following facts must be proven in this category of cases:
- evidence confirming the existence of this legal fact (documents, letters, witness statements, etc.);
- certificates from various bodies (RAGS bodies, archives, etc.) about the inability to obtain or restore proper documents certifying a legal fact;
- evidence confirming the legal purpose of establishing this fact.
State duty
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 609 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
"On Taxes and other mandatory Payments to the Budget (Tax Code)" state duty rates are determined in the amount of a multiple of the monthly calculation index established by the law on the Republican Budget and effective on the date of payment of the state duty (hereinafter referred to as the MCI), or as a percentage of the amount of the claim, unless otherwise provided by Article 610 of this Code.
According to subparagraph 8) of paragraph 1 of Article 610 of the Tax Code, state duty is levied on applications for special claims, applications (complaints) in cases of special proceedings, and administrative claims under the Administrative Procedural Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, with the exception of those specified in subparagraphs 2), 3), 4) and 13) of this paragraph. in the amount of 0.5 MCI.
The same amount of the state duty rate is established by the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 18, 2025.
A study of the cases showed that when submitting applications to the court, applicants correctly pay the state fee at the rate of 50 percent of the amount of the MCI established by the law on the republican budget and effective on the date of payment of the state fee.
At the same time, in the civil case, according to B.N.'s application for establishing the existence of a document confirming the ownership, use and disposal of immovable property, a payment document confirming the payment of a state fee in the amount of 12,900 tenge was attached to the application, whereas it was necessary to pay 0.5 MCI, that is, 1,846 tenge. When considering the above-mentioned case on the merits, the court did not refund the overpaid state fee (Arshalynsky District Court of Akmola region).
Jurisdiction
According to Article 307 of the CPC, an application for establishing a fact of legal significance is filed with the court at the applicant's place of residence, with the exception of the fact that there are documents confirming the possession, use and (or) disposal of immovable property, which is filed with the court at the location of the immovable property.
In some cases, local courts have noted that at the stage of making statements on cases of establishing a fact of legal significance, judges do not use the integrated information system for information exchange of law enforcement, special state and other bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan (SIO PSO) in their work.
Thus, by Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 28, 2023
No. 424 "On certain issues of the administrative-territorial structure of the Republic of Kazakhstan" it was decided to move the administrative center of the Katon-Karagai district of the East Kazakhstan region from the village of Ulken Naryn to the village of Katon-Karagai of the Katon-Karagai district of the East Kazakhstan region. To form the Ulken Naryn district with the administrative center in the village of Ulken Naryn as part of the East Kazakhstan region by separating from the Katon-Karagai district.
In the examples below, when the applicants, whose place of residence was previously located in the territory of the Katon-Karagai district according to the above Decree, moved to the newly formed Ulken Naryn district, they applied to the Katon-Karagai District Court.
So, M.Z. applied to the court with an application for establishing the fact of family relations.
This statement was accepted by the ruling of the judge of the Katon-Karagai District Court on March 6, 2025, and a civil case was initiated, with a preliminary court hearing scheduled for March 20, 2025.
By the ruling of the judge of the Katon-Karagai District Court dated March 31, 2025, the civil case on M.Z.'s application for establishing the fact of kinship relations was transferred for consideration on the merits to the Ulken Naryn District court under jurisdiction (subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 34 of the CPC).
Thus, the application has been in court proceedings for more than one month since its receipt, whereas it can be seen from the application that the applicant indicated his place of residence: Ulken Naryn district, Kokbastau village, therefore, the judge should have returned this application to the judge at the stage of accepting the application on the grounds of subparagraph 2) of part 1 of Article 152 of the CPC.
It should also be noted that the ruling of March 31, 2025 was issued by a judge without holding a court session, not by the composition of the court and not in a conference room, whereas based on the meaning of subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 34 of the CPC, the issue of transferring the case to another court is resolved by the court.
In addition, the said ruling dated March 31, 2025 is subject to immediate enforcement, despite the requirements of paragraph 7 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 20, 2003.
No. 2 "On the application by courts of certain norms of civil procedure legislation". According to this paragraph, in the cases provided for in the sub-paragraphs 1), 3), 4), 5), 6) According to the second part of Article 34 of the CPC, the transfer of a case from the proceedings of one court to the proceedings of another court is carried out on the basis of a court ruling that has entered into legal force.
Refusals to accept applications, refunds
G.V. applied to establish the fact of termination of marital relations since 2013 between V.K. and L.K.
It follows from the contents of the application and the attached documents that G.V. is the heir of the second stage after the death of V.K. and L.K. in connection with which, the establishment of the fact is necessary for him to accept the inheritance after the death of L.K. (L.G.).
By the ruling of the Mamlyutsky District Court of the North Kazakhstan region dated September 25, 2024, G.V. refused to accept the application.
In refusing to accept the application, the court of first instance proceeded from paragraph 12 of Regulatory Decree No. 13, stating that the fact of marital relations, as well as their termination, can be established by the court only to persons who were in such a relationship before 1944, that is, before the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated November 10, 1944.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the court's conclusions.
The applicant A.P. requested to establish the fact of his employment in various organizations in the period from 1979 to 2002 for pension purposes.
By the ruling of the Semeysky City Court of March 24, 2023, the application was returned on the basis of subparagraph 1) of part 1 of Article 152 of the CPC – non-compliance with the pre-trial procedure. The court clarified that the refund does not prevent a second appeal after the violations have been eliminated.
In accordance with paragraph 3 of regulatory Decree No. 13 and paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the Law "On Pension Provision", a citizen must initially apply to the authorized body - the territorial body of the Committee on Labor, Social Protection and Migration - with a request for confirmation of work experience.
The applicant did not provide evidence of such treatment, and therefore, the possibility of settling the issue out of court has not been exhausted.
The courts correctly note the typical mistake of applicants in this category – premature appeal to the court without confirmation of an attempt to resolve the issue with the authorized body. To prevent such returns, it is necessary to document the application to the social protection authorities (NAO GC Government for Citizens) and receive an official refusal or response.
Regulatory legal framework
The normative legal acts regulating these legal relations and subject to application in the consideration of cases of this category are:
-The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
- The Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code),
- The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – CPC),
- The Administrative Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the APPC),
-The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and other Mandatory Payments to the Budget (Tax Code)",
-Social Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
-The Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
-The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Marriage (Matrimony) and Family" (hereinafter – KBS),
-The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Notaries",
-The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Veterans",
-The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On rehabilitation of victims of mass political repression",
-The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On State social benefits for disability and age-related loss of Breadwinner in the Republic of Kazakhstan",
-Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 19, 2003 No. 5 "On judicial decision",
-Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 28, 2002 No. 13 "On judicial practice in cases of establishing facts of legal significance" (Regulatory Resolution
№13),
-Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 13, 2001 No. 21 "On the preparation of civil cases for trial"
-Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 20, 2003 No. 2 "On the application by courts of certain norms of civil procedure legislation", etc.
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
