Foreclosure on the debtor's property by bailiffs

             Chapter 7 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings regulates the procedure and procedure for foreclosing on the debtor's property.

The procedure consists of the following stages: identification; arrest; assessment; storage; sale of the debtor's property.

Paragraph 1 of article 55 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings indicates that foreclosure on the debtor's property includes its seizure and (or) its compulsory sale or transfer to the recoverer.

Due to the social significance of this stage of enforcement proceedings, these actions are often the subject of appeal.

In accordance with article 68 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, the bailiff, within ten working days from the moment of arrest and identification of ownership of the debtor's property, issues a resolution on the appointment of an appraiser by:

             self-appointment of an appraiser;

appointment of an appraiser at the suggestion of one of the parties to the enforcement proceedings;

instructions from one of the parties to the enforcement proceedings to assess the debtor's property.

Payment for the assessment of the debtor's seized property is assigned to the parties to the enforcement proceedings and is subsequently reimbursed at the expense of the debtor.

This stage does not cause difficulties in resolving disputes.

Typical errors at this stage of execution are:

acceptance of an unreliable assessment report;

violation of the procedure during the auction;

bidding more than twice.

In practice, the most difficult cases are those of disagreement with a certain value of the debtor's property and with the auctions held.

When performing enforcement actions, bailiffs must comply with the recommended validity period of the assessment report.

For example, in the framework of enforcement proceedings, the debtor's apartment was seized.

On March 5, 2021, a decree was issued on the appointment of a specialist to assess the seized property and a report on the market value of the property was made.

On April 9, 2021, the court granted a delay in the execution of the court's decision until September 1, 2021. Due to its non-fulfillment, on October 7, 2021, the CHSI issued a resolution on the transfer of seized property for sale with a selling value of 10,778,000 tenge.

The courts declared the actions of the CSI illegal, since more than six months had passed from the moment of the assessment of the apartment (March 5, 2021) to the issuance of the contested decision on the transfer of the apartment for sale (October 7, 2021), therefore, the amount indicated in the property assessment report at the time of the decision of March 5, 2021 was irrelevant (6001-22-00 6ap/100).

However, not in all cases the recommended duration of the assessment report is 6 months.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 74 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, the bailiff, after the seizure and assessment of the property and before the sale of the property, simultaneously with familiarization with the assessment report, grants the debtor, upon his written request, the right to independently sell the seized property within a period of no more than one month at a cost not less than seventy-five percent of its estimated value the value indicated in the valuation report, which has been completed no more than one year since the date of compilation. This provision provides for a longer period of validity of the assessment report in cases where the debtor exercises its right to self-realization.

By virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 68 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, a party to enforcement proceedings who does not agree with the assessment may apply to the expert council for an opinion on the assessment in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Evaluation Activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan" or appeal it to the court in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on administrative proceedings.

A negative opinion of the expert council or the court's recognition of the assessment report as invalid is the basis for the appointment of a new assessment by the bailiff.

If a negative opinion is issued by the expert council, the payment made by the customer for the examination of the assessment report is reimbursed by the appraiser who compiled the assessment report or by the legal entity with whom the appraiser concluded an employment contract.

The interpretation of this rule causes difficulties and different applications in local courts. Previously, before the introduction of the APPC, in case of disagreement with the assessment according to part 6 of Article 250 of the CPC, the actions of the bailiff were subject to appeal.

Currently, due to the introduction of the APPC in case of disagreement with the assessment report, the plaintiffs are challenging both the report itself and the actions of the bailiff to accept the report.

The procedure for verifying the reliability of the assessment report by the expert council is regulated by article 11 of the Law "On Assessment Activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan".

According to article 11 of the Law "On Valuation Activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan", in the event of a dispute about the reliability of the market value or other value of the valuation object established in the valuation report, including in connection with an existing other valuation report of the same object, an examination of the valuation report may be conducted.

The examination of the assessment report is conducted by the expert council of the Chamber of Appraisers, of which the appraiser who conducted the assessment is a member.

The examination of the assessment report is carried out on the initiative of the customer and (or) a third party challenging the assessment report.

The examination of the assessment report is carried out at the expense of the party initiating the examination of the assessment report and on the basis of an agreement between the person challenging the assessment report and the Chamber of Appraisers.

Another way to appeal the assessment report is to go to court.

In accordance with paragraphs 15, 16 of the Rules, the seized property is not put up for electronic auction without proper notification or familiarization of the debtor and the recoverer about the assessment and providing them with ten calendar days to appeal the results of the assessment.

The calculation of the specified period begins from the date of notification or familiarization of the debtor and the recoverer about the assessment made.

The question arises how the court should establish the reliability of the disputed assessment.

Different practices have developed in the regions.

The courts check the legality of the assessment decision made by the couple in the following ways:

appointment of an examination of the assessment report with a referral to the expert council;

attracting a specialist;

appointment of a forensic commodity expert examination for self-determination of the value of the valuation object;

independently verify the legality of the preparation of the report and its compliance with the Valuation Standards "Valuation of real estate", approved by Order No. 519 of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 5, 2018.

For example, the valuation report determined the market value of the disputed property in the amount of 137,170,000 tenge.

The courts recognized the actions to accept the report as illegal, since the debtor was not familiar with the assessment report, which led to a violation of his right to appeal the results and provide an alternative assessment report on the disputed property.

Also, the appraiser did not include one of the three land plots adjacent to the store building in the composition of the assessed property, and the profitable valuation method was not applied (6001-22-00-6ap/237).

When analyzing the assessment reports provided by the parties to the enforcement proceedings, bailiffs need to ensure that the rights of the parties to the enforcement proceedings are respected. For example, as part of the enforcement proceedings, the CSI obliged the debtor to provide a report on the assessment of his property, but refused to accept the report.

The courts, having analyzed the report provided by the debtor, determined that the report correctly reflects the real market value of real estate.

The reliability of the assessment report is beyond doubt, since together with it, the specialist submitted documents confirming qualifications and membership in the Chamber of Appraisers.

The courts declared the assessment report adopted by the CSI invalid, obliging them to accept the report provided by the debtor (6001-22-00-6ap/566).

In accordance with article 5 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, the task of administrative proceedings is a fair, impartial and timely resolution of administrative cases in order to effectively protect and restore violated or disputed rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of individuals, rights and legitimate interests of legal entities in public relations.

Therefore, the appeal to the court with a claim is dictated by a violation of the rights of a person. The legal consequences of the assessment report arise for the party to the enforcement proceedings only from the moment the bailiff accepts this order to perform enforcement actions.

Thus, in case of disagreement with the assessment report, the actions of the bailiff on the adoption of this report are subject to appeal.

Based on the content of article 68 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, if the party to enforcement proceedings disagrees with the assessment, two ways of protection are provided:

- appeal to the expert council;

- appeal to the court.

When applying to the court, a legal assessment of the legality of the assessment report adopted by the bailiff must be given during the consideration of the case.

The court has the right to involve a specialist of the Chamber of appraisers in the case or independently analyze the assessment report adopted by the bailiff.

Referral of the case to the expert council leads to a delay in the consideration of the case and actually replaces another way of protecting the rights of the party that does not agree with the accepted assessment report.

             In addition, court rulings on the referral of cases to the expert council are returned to the court without execution, since payment for the services of the expert council has not been made.

Also, the appointment of commodity expertise by the courts does not correspond to the tasks of administrative proceedings.

Determining the market value of the seized property is within the authority of the bailiff.

The methods are defined in paragraph 1 of Article 68 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings. Consequently, the actions of the bailiff to accept the contested assessment report are subject to review by verifying the legality of this report.

These recommendations should be reflected in the NP of the Supreme Court "On the application by courts of certain norms of legislation on enforcement proceedings".

For example, the SCUD of the Supreme Court found the conclusions of local courts on forcing the CHSI to accept the expert opinion drawn up by the court's definition to be unfounded.

Local courts, when considering an administrative claim to appeal against the actions of the judicial executive, appointed a commodity expert examination of the object being sold.

The cassation Board, canceling judicial acts in this part, found that the appointment of a commodity expert examination by the court does not correspond to the tasks of administrative proceedings, delays the consideration of the case, is a procedurally unjustified decision leading to excessive court costs.

Determining the market value of the seized property is within the powers of a private bailiff, and their methods are defined in paragraph 1 of Article 68 of the Law.

Due to the shortened recommended validity period of the assessment report (6 months), taking into account the appeal of actions to accept the assessment, bailiffs are forced to re-evaluate even after the court has reviewed the case.

These actions impose additional costs on the debtor, violate the rights of claimants to timely execution.

Based on this, in the case of compulsory sale of property, the recommended validity period of the assessment report should be extended to a year.

By virtue of paragraphs 1, 2 of Article 74 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, the sale of seized property, except for property withdrawn from circulation by law, regardless of the grounds for arrest and types of property, with the exception of property specified in paragraph 3 of Article 77 of this Law, is carried out by a bailiff at auction in the form of an electronic auction on a single electronic on the trading platform of the state automated information system of enforcement proceedings or on a single electronic trading platform, the choice of which is carried out by the Republican Chamber in accordance with the procedure, determined by the authorized body.

The bailiff, after the seizure and assessment of the property and before the sale of the property, simultaneously with familiarization with the assessment report, grants the debtor, upon his written request, the right to independently sell the seized property within a period of no more than one month at a cost not less than seventy-five cents of its estimated value specified in the assessment report, from the date of compilation which has been no more than one year.

The debtor's receipt of a permit for the sale of property is not a reason for suspending the procedures for the sale of property.

The period of independent sale of the dwelling is three months, during which the property cannot be put up for auction.

The right of independent sale of the seized property may be used by the debtor no more than once in a single enforcement proceeding. The specified norm is applied by the HSI, there are no problematic issues.

For example, enforcement proceedings on foreclosure on land plots were under way. CHSI denied the debtor's right to self-realization.

This refusal of the CSI was found not to comply with the norms of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, since the plaintiff, with the written permission of the bailiff and within the prescribed period, has the right to sell the pledged property at a value not lower than the estimated value established by a court decision (6001-22-00-6ap/575).

The largest number of administrative lawsuits at this stage of enforcement proceedings is related to the appeal of the auction results.

The high social significance of this stage of enforcement proceedings causes the debtors to disagree with the sale of their property.

According to paragraph 14 of the Rules, the decision to put the seized property up for electronic auction is made by the bailiff, which issues an appropriate resolution.

For example, the courts canceled the protocol on the results of the electronic auction, since it was signed by the digital signature of the bailiff, who was not a participant in this enforcement proceedings.

Thus, during the consideration of the case, it was established that after the transfer of property for sale, the enforcement proceedings were transferred to another CSI (6001 22-00-6ap/156).

Paragraph 4 of article 85 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings establishes that, within the framework of enforcement proceedings, the procedure for the sale of seized property through an electronic auction cannot be conducted more than twice.

If the property is not sold through an electronic auction and the recoverer refuses to keep the property for himself, foreclosure on the property is terminated and further measures are taken to foreclose on other property of the debtor.

In this case, the seizure of such property is lifted only after the termination of enforcement proceedings on the grounds provided for in article 47 of this Law on Enforcement Proceedings.

For example, the decision of the International Arbitration Court defines the procedure and method of its execution, it is expressly prescribed to foreclose on collateral owned by A. and T.

The mortgaged property is foreclosed. Tenders for the execution of this decision were held 4 times.

The courts decided that the transfer of the seized property to auction for the fifth time directly violates the norm of the Law, since it does not imply a double understanding of its meaning and is imperative (6001-21-00 6ap/5).

Thus, based on the literal interpretation of the norms of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, auctions for the sale of property within the framework of fulfilling the requirements of one enforcement document can be held no more than twice.

The return of the enforcement document by the bailiff and the subsequent initiation of enforcement proceedings by another bailiff does not give rise to the right to hold tenders more than twice.

Also, the parties to the enforcement proceedings will appeal the auction, referring to the violation of the procedure, the interest of the participants in the outcome of the auction.

             In accordance with paragraph 20 of the Rules, a person becomes a participant in an electronic auction from the moment the application for the EET is received.

Paragraph 2 of article 80 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings provides that bailiffs and judges who made a decision on this enforcement proceedings, an appraiser who assessed the seized property, as well as their close relatives, spouse, debtor cannot participate in an electronic auction as buyers.

This list is exhaustive and cannot be interpreted broadly. For example, the SCUD of the Supreme Court changed the judicial acts of local courts, recognizing the auction as legitimate. The Board found that there were no violations during the bidding process.

The property was sold for a value exceeding that provided by the debtor himself, no communication was established between the participants, the court decision is not enforced for a long time (6001 22-00-6ap/658).

However, if there is acceptable and reliable evidence of the bidders' interest in reducing the cost and violations of the bidding procedure, the claim is subject to satisfaction. For example, the debtor's property has been transferred for sale in the form of a shopping center and an apartment building.

The only bidders, H. and A., were previously married, have children together and are registered at the same address, which casts doubt that the electronic auction was conducted in compliance with the principle of competition between potential buyers and they deliberately lowered the starting price.

SCUD indicated that the participants H. and A. acted in bad faith during the bidding process (6001-22-00-6ap/752).

Thus, in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 85 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, upon recognition of an electronic auction as invalid, the recoverer has the right to retain the property at the valuation value by submitting an application to the bailiff within five working days from the date of recognition of the electronic auction as invalid.

The absence of the claimant's statement on the retention of property is recognized as the claimant's refusal to accept the property.

If the claimant refuses to accept the property, the bailiff appoints an electronic auction procedure by re-placing the relevant application on a single electronic trading platform.

According to paragraph 5 of Article 319 of the Civil Code, when declaring auctions invalid, due to the participation of less than two buyers in them, the pledgee has the right either to convert the pledged property into his own property at its current estimated value, established by a court decision or a proxy based on an assessment report, or to demand the appointment of new auctions.

From the meaning of Article 319 of the Civil Code and Article 85 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, it follows that the bailiff is obliged to find out from the pledgee whether he wants to exercise his right to foreclose the pledged property into his property.

During this procedure, transparency of the actions performed is important.

The debtor must be duly notified of the intention of the recoverer to keep the property in his possession.

Also, the organizer of the auction (the site) is obliged to take measures to notify about the ongoing auctions in the mass media and other Internet platforms for the sale of property in order to attract the largest number of participants.

Formulation of requirements for administrative lawsuits challenging decisions, actions (inaction) of bailiffs

When filing an administrative claim to appeal against the actions (inaction) of bailiffs by plaintiffs, the claims are stated in various editions.

By virtue of article 132 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, if the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the plaintiff are violated by an burdensome administrative act, he has the right to file a challenge claim demanding that the administrative act be canceled in full or in any part thereof.

In case of disagreement with the decision issued by the bailiff, the requirements are declared to recognize this decision as illegal.

Simultaneous filing of a claim for recognition of actions as illegal is not required. In accordance with part 2 of Article 84 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, an illegal administrative act may be repealed in whole or in part.

If the decision is declared illegal, the court cancels the said decision.

Jurisdiction of lawsuits to administrative courts

             In accordance with article 127 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, the decision and action (inaction) of the bailiff to execute the enforcement document or refusal to commit such actions may be appealed by the recoverer or the debtor to the court.

The complaint is filed with the court in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on administrative proceedings.

Based on the content of the specified norm, only the parties to the enforcement proceedings have the right to appeal against the actions of the bailiff.

At the same time, in practice, disputes often arise with bailiffs from persons who are not parties to enforcement proceedings.

Paragraph 2 of the NP of the Supreme Court "On the application by the courts of certain norms of legislation on enforcement proceedings" provides for the right of interested persons to challenge the actions of the CSR.

By virtue of part 1 of Article 9 of the CPC, everyone has the right, in accordance with the procedure established by this Code, to apply to an administrative body, an official or a court for the protection of violated or disputed rights, freedoms or legitimate interests.

This provision provides for the right to take legal action if there is an interest.

When receiving claims from persons who are not parties to enforcement proceedings, the courts should check whether there is another way to protect and restore the disputed right and whether there are not mediocre legal consequences for the plaintiff from the actions committed.

For example, JSC is a recoverer of enforcement proceedings for the recovery of debts from LLP in the amount of 220,989,149 tenge, court costs.

The LLP is also a debtor in enforcement proceedings for the recovery of wage arrears in favor of individuals for a total amount of KZT 17,569,000.

The actions of the CHSI in the framework of the execution of the collection of wage arrears were appealed by the JSC, which has the right to file a claim to challenge the actions of the defendant, which give rise to legal consequences for him, since the sold property was built within the terms of the Investment Agreement and was a pledge on the basis of the Pledge Agreement.

The courts considered the claims on the merits, the claim was partially satisfied (6001-22-00 6ap/607).

In order to exclude different interpretations of the norms of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings in the NP of the Supreme Court "On the application by courts of certain norms of legislation on enforcement proceedings", it is necessary to detail the conditions under which an interested person has the right to appeal against the actions (inaction) of bailiffs in court.

The plaintiff is obliged to prove his material or legal interest in appealing the actions (inaction) of bailiffs.

However, in the absence of a real legal interest and the availability of another way of protection, the claims of such persons are subject to refund.

For example, the claim of a person who is not the mortgagee of the sold property has been returned (6001-22-00-6ap/394).

Collection of state duty

             Plaintiffs on claims to appeal the actions (inaction) of bailiffs from paying the state fee when filing a lawsuit in court are exempt in accordance with subparagraph 15) of Article 616 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and other mandatory payments to the budget".

In accordance with part 1 of Article 122 of the CPC, issues related to the allocation of court costs are considered according to the rules of the CPC.

By virtue of part 1 of Article 117 of the CPC, the state fee from which the plaintiff was exempted, as well as the costs associated with the proceedings, are collected from the defendant, who is not exempt from paying court costs, to the state income in full or in proportion to the satisfied part of the claim.

Upon satisfaction of the claim, the state fee to the local budget revenue is subject to collection from the bailiff in proportion to the satisfied part of the claim.

The state duty rate is calculated according to the rules of subparagraph 8) of paragraph 1 of Article 610 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and other mandatory payments to the budget" (0.5 MCI).           

Suspension of enforcement proceedings

             In accordance with subparagraph 13) of article 42 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, enforcement proceedings are subject to suspension within one working day in cases where enforcement proceedings are requested by the court.

In practice, the courts, in their rulings on actions in an incoming administrative case, indicate the demand for materials of enforcement proceedings.

After receiving the materials of the enforcement proceedings, the courts do not return the materials of the enforcement proceedings before considering the case on the merits or before the court decision enters into force.

This practice entails a long suspension of enforcement proceedings, violation of the rights of the claimant, and does not always correspond to the goals and objectives of administrative proceedings. In order to exclude violations and respect the rights of the parties to enforcement proceedings, the following sequence should be followed:

- the reclamation of the materials of the enforcement proceedings by a ruling on the actions of the court in the received administrative case;

             - receipt from the bailiff of the originals of the enforcement proceedings on paper or electronic media;

- attaching the materials necessary for the consideration of the dispute to the materials of the administrative case;

- the return of enforcement proceedings when necessary.

Based on the subject of the administrative claim, the defendant should refrain from executive actions within the contested stage.

Thus, if there is a court ruling by which the court demanded the materials of the enforcement proceedings from the bailiff, it is necessary for the bailiff to issue a decision on the suspension of enforcement proceedings before the official return of the materials by the court.

In order to form a uniform practice on this procedural issue, it is necessary to clarify in the NP of the Supreme Court "On the application by courts of certain norms of legislation on enforcement proceedings".

The time limit for appealing a court decision

             Part 4 of Article 168 of the APPC provides that an appeal, a petition from the prosecutor for administrative cases to challenge the actions (inaction) of bailiffs may be filed within ten working days from the date of the decision.

The date of the decision is considered to be the date of the announcement of the judicial act.

When explaining the court's decision, the courts should indicate to the parties about the specifics of the appeal period.

In order to ensure guarantees for the speedy resolution of disputes and the exclusion of abuse of the right on the part of debtors, to provide for the entry into force of the court decision from the date of the announcement of the decision of the appellate instance.

The deadline for filing a claim (the practice of restoring deadlines)

             Part 4 of Article 136 of the APPC provides that claims against the actions (inaction) of the bailiff for the execution of enforcement documents are filed with the court within ten working days from the date of the action (refusal to commit the action) or from the day when the recoverer or debtor, who was not notified of the time and place of the action by the bailiff, became aware of It is known.

The establishment of such a deadline is due to the need to ensure the continuity of enforcement proceedings and cannot be considered as violating the right to judicial protection.

In practice, there are cases when the actions of bailiffs are appealed by debtors in order to delay the terms of enforcement proceedings, with reasons that the party was not acquainted with the materials of enforcement proceedings in a timely manner, in connection with which claims are filed in violation of the established deadlines for applying to the court.

             When considering this category of disputes, special attention should be paid to the study of the materials of enforcement proceedings and to establish methods and dates for notifying the parties to enforcement proceedings of the actions taken.

By virtue of Part 7 of Article 134 of the CPC, the time limit for filing a claim that has been missed for a good reason may be restored by the court according to the rules of the CPC.

The reasons for missing deadlines for filing a lawsuit and their importance for the correct resolution of an administrative case are clarified by the court in a preliminary hearing.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 126 of the CPC, the time limits established by law may be restored by the court if they are missed for a reason recognized by the court as valid.

At the same time, the validity of missing the deadline must be confirmed by acceptable and relevant evidence.

The analysis showed that the courts return claims when the reasons for missing the deadline are not objective and do not indicate the presence of any facts that would prevent the timely appeal of the plaintiff to the court.

For example, enforcement proceedings on foreclosure of property were found in the production of the Civil Code.

Electronic auctions were held on January 4, 2019, the results of which were appealed by the debtor.

Returning the claim, the courts indicated that acceptable and reliable evidence of the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for appealing the actions of the judicial officer was not provided.

The plaintiff's arguments that the appeal period for electronic trading is three years are untenable, since this dispute arises from the actions of the bailiff for the execution of enforcement documents (6001-22 00-6ap/726).

Another example is also related to the lack of evidence, the validity of the reasons for the start of the deadline. The plaintiff was acquainted with the materials of the enforcement proceedings on February 8, 2021, about which there is a receipt in the case.

However, he did not apply to the court within the prescribed 10-day period.

In the petition for the restoration of the deadline for applying to the court, as a valid reason for his omission, it is indicated that the plaintiff became aware of the actual recovery of the amount owed on September 29, 2021.

In the period October, November 2021, due to illness, he was unable to prepare a lawsuit in court.

The court assessed the documents provided (a certificate from a therapist), indicating that they did not confirm the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline (No. 6001-22-00-6ap/398).

Refund of the claim

Part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC provides 17 grounds for the return of an administrative claim.

Cases of the category under consideration are most often returned for the following reasons:

paragraph 6) of part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC - the plaintiff withdrew the filed claim;

9) of part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC - the parties have concluded an agreement on reconciliation, mediation or settlement of a dispute through a participatory procedure, and it has been approved by the court;

11) of part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC - the case is not subject to consideration in administrative proceedings;

17) of part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC - the case is not within the jurisdiction of this court.

Also, the basis for the return of the claim is provided by part 8 of Article 136 of the APPC, according to which the omission of the deadline for filing a claim to the court without a valid reason, as well as the inability to restore the missed deadline for applying to the court, are the grounds for returning the claim.

The courts have no difficulties in resolving the issue of the return of claims in the analyzed category.

             At the same time, the implementation of the principle of the active role of the court has significantly increased the number of cases resolved peacefully (conclusion of an agreement or withdrawal of a claim).

Regulatory legal acts

The main regulatory legal acts regulating the issues of enforcement proceedings are:

The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

APPC;

GK; GPC;

The Law on Enforcement Proceedings;

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Valuation activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan";

NP of the Supreme Court of March 31, 2017 No. 1 "On the application by courts of certain norms of legislation on enforcement proceedings";

NP of the Supreme Court of December 19, 2003 No. 12 "On liability for non-execution of judicial acts";

Rules approved by the Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated February 20, 2015 No. 100;

Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 4, 2014 No. 437 "On approval of the amount of payment for the activities of a private bailiff".

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, judicial acts that have entered into force are mandatory for execution by all state bodies, local self-government bodies, legal entities, officials, citizens and are subject to execution throughout the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The purpose of enforcement proceedings is to ensure the real restoration of violated or disputed rights or legally protected interests.

          Appealing against the actions (inaction) of a bailiff is a form of judicial control in enforcement proceedings, the purpose of which is to protect the rights and interests of the parties to enforcement proceedings.

Abbreviations used

APPC – Administrative Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

CPC – Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Enforcement Proceedings and the status of bailiffs" – The Law on Enforcement Proceedings;

NP VS – Normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

Rules for the sale of seized property, including at auctions in the form of an electronic auction – Rules;

AIAS – Automated information and analytical system of judicial authorities of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Torelik";

SCAD VS – Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan; SCAD or board – judicial board for administrative cases;

SMAS – specialized inter-district Administrative Court;

DU – Department(s) of Justice;

GSI – State judicial officer(s);

CSI is a private bailiff(s);

CGO – central government agency;

MIO – local executive bodies.

Attention!

       The Law and Law Law Firm draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a specific situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drafting any legal document that is suitable for your situation.

      For more information, contact a Advokat/Lawyer by phone; +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.

 Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court cases