Failure by the plaintiff to provide evidence confirming the claims during the court proceedings is a procedural omission by the party, however, the circumstances that arose after the issuance of the judicial act are not grounds for reviewing the judicial act due to newly discovered circumstances.
JSC Lokomotiv (hereinafter referred to as JSC) applied to the court for a review of the newly discovered circumstances of the decision of the Supervisory Judicial Board for Civil and Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court dated January 28, 2014 in a civil case against the spouses of the Joint–Stock Company for their eviction with minor children Sh-mi - G., B., E., J. and S. from office premises without providing another dwelling with the involvement of third parties without independent claims of the State Institution "Department of Education of the city of Pavlodar"; on debt collection for utilities. The JSC motivated its claim by the fact that it is the owner of an apartment (hereinafter referred to as the disputed apartment) in Pavlodar under a purchase and sale agreement dated October 20, 2011. On March 27, 2012, JSC provided an apartment for temporary use to its employee Sh-wu and his family members under a temporary use agreement for office premises. On July 9, 2012, the employment contract with the employee was terminated, which, by virtue of clause 7.2.7 of the contract, is the basis for early termination of the contract at the request of the owner. By the decision of the Pavlodar City Court of February 20, 2013, which was left unchanged by the decision of the appellate judicial board of the Pavlodar Regional Court of May 28, 2013, the claims of the JSC were partially satisfied.
The court decided to evict the defendants and their minor children from the apartment without providing other housing. The claim for debt collection on public utilities was denied. By the decision of the cassation judicial board of the same court dated August 6, 2013, the decision of the appellate judicial board remained unchanged.By the resolution of the Supervisory Judicial Board for Civil and Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 28, 2014, the judicial acts in this case regarding the eviction of the defendants were canceled. In the case, a new decision was made to dismiss the claims of the Joint-stock company in this part. JSC filed an application for a review of the decision of the supervisory court on the grounds provided for in subparagraph 1) of Article 404 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) due to newly discovered circumstances. According to this rule, the grounds for reviewing decisions, rulings and rulings on newly discovered circumstances are circumstances essential to the case that were not and could not have been known to the applicant. The applicant considers the following circumstance to be such grounds. According to JSC information, the defendants have real estate in Zhezgazgan owned by the Company on the right of private ownership. At the same time, the defendants did not inform the court about the presence of this apartment. The plaintiff was not aware of this.
On April 1, 2014, the Public Service Center for the Esil district of Astana, based on the address of the immovable property, issued a certificate of registered encumbrances on the apartment, confirming the presence of encumbrances on residential property from the rightholder, who has been Sh-va since August 15, 2007 to the present. The applicant believes that this circumstance indicates that the defendants have real estate, is essential to the case and is a newly discovered circumstance. After discussing the arguments of the application and the case materials, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan came to the following conclusion. In accordance with Article 404 of the CPC, decisions, rulings, and resolutions that have entered into force may be reviewed under newly discovered circumstances. Within the meaning of subparagraph 1) of this article, newly discovered circumstances are those circumstances that existed on the day the court of first instance issued the judicial act and are significant in their content, but which were not and could not have been known to the applicant. The arguments of the applicant, cited by him as the basis for reviewing the decision of the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, namely that Sh-voy, a member of the defendant's family, had her own home in Zhezkazgan during the specified period of time, could not be recognized as such, since they did not relate to any of the grounds entailing judicial review. an act based on newly discovered circumstances. According to the explanation contained in paragraph 10 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 25, 2007 No. 12 "On certain issues of revision of judicial acts in civil cases due to newly discovered circumstances" (with amendments and additions as of December 29, 2012), material circumstances are understood as such legal facts that, when examined in accordance with the The content of the judicial act could be influenced at the court session. The spouses of Sh-you have five minor children on their own, have no other housing in this locality except for a service apartment, and are a large family. In this regard, the supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, by a resolution dated January 28, 2014, recognized the eviction of the defendants from their official home without providing other housing as unjustified. Office housing in Pavlodar was provided to Sh-wu and his family members in connection with his official activities in JSC, with which the defendant is still in an employment relationship. The fact that a member of the defendant's family has his own home in Zhezkazgan cannot affect the content of the decision of the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, since the disputed legal relations between the parties arose on the basis of labor relations and are based on the norms of substantive law governing these relations.
Failure by the plaintiff to provide evidence confirming the claims during the trial in the court of first instance and in subsequent instances is a procedural omission by the party. The circumstances that arose after the issuance of the judicial act are not grounds for reviewing the judicial act based on newly discovered circumstances. Taking into account the above, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan refused to satisfy the JSC's application for a review of the resolution of the Supervisory Judicial Board for Civil and Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 28, 2014 in a civil case on the JSC's claim against the Sh-you for their eviction with minor children – G., B., E., J. and S. from office premises without providing another dwelling with the involvement of third parties without independent claims of the State Institution "Department of Education of the city of Pavlodar" and on debt collection for utilities.
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
