Housing Disputes Concerning the Refusal to Provide Housing in Cases of Expropriation or Requisition of Property for State Needs or on Other Grounds

It follows from the administrative cases reviewed that the disputes were not related to challenging the actions of state bodies concerning the refusal to provide housing in cases of expropriation or requisition of property for state needs.

The analysis showed that such claims were practically not filed with the courts of the Republic, with the exception of the Karaganda Region and the courts of Astana.

For reference: By the decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court (SMAC) dated August 2, 2022, the claims of A. and Sh. against the Akim, seeking to declare unlawful and annul the Akim’s decision dated March 1, 2022, and to compel the provision of housing, were dismissed in full (No. 6001-23-00-6ap/198).

The circumstances of the case established that, since 1994, the plaintiffs had owned an apartment in a multi-storey residential building on the basis of a privatization agreement. The building was demolished in 2010. Believing that they had been forcibly deprived of their housing, they applied to the respondent with a request to provide housing from the state housing fund or to pay monetary compensation in lieu of the lost housing. Their request was denied.

In dismissing the claim, the court concluded that the respondent had no legal grounds to provide the plaintiffs with housing from the state housing fund or to pay the relevant compensation.

Thus, pursuant to subparagraph 5) of paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Law on Housing Relations, the compulsory termination of ownership rights to housing (against the will of the owner) is permitted in cases involving the demolition of an аварийный multi-apartment residential building.

Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the Law on Housing Relations provides that, in the event of the compulsory termination of ownership rights to housing on the grounds stipulated in subparagraph 5) of paragraph 1 of this Article, the owner shall be provided with housing in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Law on Housing Relations.

The plaintiffs did not provide evidence that the building in question had been declared unsafe and was demolished by the local executive body for that reason.

According to the information contained in the legal cadastre, the plaintiffs’ ownership rights to the disputed apartment were not compulsorily terminated, and the disputed apartment was not recognized as having been transferred into municipal ownership.

By the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Regional Court, the decision of the court was upheld without amendment.

By the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court, the judicial acts of the local courts were upheld without amendment.

Another example from the practice of the Astana City Court. The plaintiff filed a claim seeking to compel certain actions, requesting that the Commission’s decision, insofar as it refused to provide her with new housing, be declared unlawful and that the respondent be obliged to provide her with housing. She based her claim on the fact that she had found herself in difficult life circumstances due to her relocation from unsafe housing.

For reference: By the decision of the SMAC of Astana dated August 7, 2023, which was upheld without amendment by the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Astana City Court on November 8, 2023, V.’s claim against the Akimat and the Commission for the Implementation of the Housing Stock Renovation Project was granted:

• the decision of the Commission for the Implementation of the Housing Stock Renovation Project dated May 23, 2023, No. 1, insofar as it refused to provide V. with new housing, was declared unlawful;
• the Akimat and the Commission for the Implementation of the Housing Stock Renovation Project were ordered to provide V. with housing.

The circumstances of the case established that V. has been residing in the apartment from February 10, 2004, to the present on the basis of a residential lease agreement dated February 10, 2004, concluded with an LLP (the lessor). Under the agreement, the apartment was provided to the plaintiff, as the tenant, for temporary use without supporting title documents, with a monthly rent of 500 tenge. The term of the agreement was not specified.

By Resolution of the Akimat dated February 9, 2023, No. 510-211, a decision was adopted on the compulsory alienation of property by way of requisition.

By this Resolution, the state institution was instructed to send the owners of residential and non-residential premises a written notice of the forthcoming compulsory alienation of land plots and real property and to carry out the resettlement of the owners of residential and non-residential premises. Thus, the unsafe barrack-type residential building together with the land plot is subject to compulsory alienation for state needs by way of requisition.

According to information provided by the Astana branch of the Non-Profit Joint Stock Company “State Corporation “Government for Citizens”, Apartment No. 3 in the unsafe building is owned by an LLP.

Previously, since 1982, V. had lived with her family in an apartment that had been provided to the plaintiff’s mother, E. In 2010, the plaintiff’s mother, E. died, and ownership rights to the apartment were not registered in accordance with the established procedure.

By a decision of the Maslikhat, the Program “Demolition of Unsafe and Dilapidated Residential Buildings in the City of Astana for 2006–2008” was approved. Under the Program, investors, including an LLP, were attracted by offering land plots suitable and attractive for development. Thus, Apartment No. 3 was provided to V. by the investor, LLP “Zh”, in connection with the demolition of the unsafe residential building.

By Resolution of the Acting Akim dated December 5, 2022, No. 182-3628, the Commission for the Implementation of the Housing Stock Renovation Project under the Akimat of Astana was established.

The main tasks of the Commission are to make decisions, in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, on providing compensation to owners and tenants residing in unsafe buildings subject to demolition as part of the implementation of the housing stock renovation project, as well as to conclude transfer and lease agreements for the apartments (non-residential premises) provided.

By the Commission’s decision, V. and her family members residing with her were refused the provision of new housing due to the owners’ failure to submit title documents for the housing.

In granting the claim, the courts proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff had lived in the disputed apartment for more than 19 years and had borne the burden of its maintenance, as confirmed by the residential lease agreement dated 2004 and receipts for the payment of utility services.

Moreover, it was established that the plaintiff openly used the property and bore the burden of its maintenance. Throughout the entire period, the owner, the LLP, had not raised any claims regarding her residence in the disputed apartment, and the lessor had not demanded rent from the plaintiff since the conclusion of the lease agreement.

The courts concluded that the above circumstances indicated that the owner of the apartment, the LLP, had withdrawn from exercising its ownership rights without any intention of retaining any rights to the housing, since the housing had been left unattended by the owner and the owner had failed to fulfill its obligations for its maintenance.

The courts also took into account that the disputed apartment had been provided by the investor in exchange for the previously demolished residential building that had been declared unsafe.

At the same time, the plaintiff did not own any other housing and, due to her age (59 years old), was unable to independently resolve her housing problem. She therefore belonged to the category of persons in need of housing.

In view of the above-established circumstances, as well as the respondent’s violation of the objectives and principles of administrative procedures provided for in Chapter 2 of the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code (APPC), the local courts granted the claim in full.

At present, the above administrative case is pending before the Judicial Panel for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court (No. 6001-23-00-6ap/3405).

A similar example: By the decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court (SMAC) of Astana dated August 23, 2023, which was upheld without amendment by the Judicial Panel for Administrative Cases of the Astana City Court on November 15, 2023, the claim of I. against the Akimat and the Commission for the Implementation of the Housing Stock Renovation Project, seeking to impose an obligation to issue a favorable administrative act on the provision of housing, was granted:

• the Akimat and the Commission for the Implementation of the Housing Stock Renovation Project were obliged to issue a favorable administrative act providing housing to I.;
• the issue of refunding the state duty paid from the local budget was resolved.

For reference: According to a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Housing Cooperative (KSK), I. resides in a room provided at her place of work. The respondent does not dispute the fact that I. has resided in the room since the указанное time.

According to information from the e-Gov electronic portal, I. has been registered at this address since August 28, 1998.

By Resolution of the Territorial Committee for State Property and Privatization of Astana dated November 11, 1999, the rooms in this dormitory were included in the list of state housing fund dormitories transferred to the Housing Department for the purpose of privatization. At the time of the transfer, the balance holder was a Joint-Stock Company.

Pursuant to the Concept for the Development of Housing and Communal Infrastructure until 2026, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 736 dated September 23, 2022, and the Resolution of the Akimat of Astana, the unsafe residential building together with the land plot is subject to compulsory alienation by way of requisition.

By the Commission’s decision, I. and her family members residing with her (her son M., born in 1993) were refused the provision of new housing due to the owners’ failure to submit title documents.

On June 6, 2023, the plaintiff was sent a notice requiring her to vacate the apartment.

Disagreeing with the eviction, the plaintiff requested the court to oblige the respondent to provide housing. She based her claim on the fact that in 1993 she had been provided with a room at her place of work and had continuously resided there and borne the burden of its maintenance ever since. However, due to the absence of the necessary documents, she was unable to register the room in her own name. This was her only housing, and, as the dormitory had been declared unsafe, she was being evicted without being provided with alternative housing.

In granting I.’s claim, the courts proceeded from the fact that I. had resided in the disputed room for more than 19 years and had borne the burden of its maintenance, as confirmed by certificates issued by the maintenance services and receipts for the payment of utility services.

In addition, the plaintiff did not own any other housing (room). Being an old-age pensioner (66 years old), she was unable to independently resolve her housing problem and therefore belonged to the category of persons in need of housing.

In view of the above-established circumstances, as well as the respondent’s violation of the objectives and principles of administrative procedures provided for in Chapter 2 of the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code (APPC), the local courts granted the claim in full.

At present, this administrative case is pending before the Judicial Panel for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court (No. 6001-24-00-6ap/9).

Another example: By the decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court (SMAC) of Astana dated August 9, 2023, which was upheld without amendment by the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Administrative Cases of the Astana City Court dated November 1, 2023, the claim of L. against the Akimat and the Commission for the Implementation of the Housing Stock Renovation Project was granted. The decision of the Commission for the Implementation of the Housing Stock Renovation Project dated May 23, 2023, No. 1, insofar as it refused to provide housing to L., was declared unlawful. The Akimat and the Commission for the Implementation of the Housing Stock Renovation Project were obliged to provide L. with housing.

For reference: It was established that the building had been declared unsafe by a resolution of the Akimat and was subject to compulsory alienation by way of requisition.

A Commission was established for the purpose of making decisions on the provision of compensation to owners and tenants residing in unsafe buildings subject to demolition as part of the implementation of the housing stock renovation project.

The plaintiff has been registered and residing in Apartment No. 2 of the above-mentioned building since 1982.

By the Commission’s decision dated May 23, 2023, the plaintiff was refused the provision of new housing due to the absence of title documents and the existence of a decision dated August 1, 2007, refusing legalization.

In granting the claim, the court of first instance stated that the plaintiff belonged to socially vulnerable groups of the population in need of housing due to her age, and that the challenged decision had been issued without taking into account the objectives and principles of administrative procedures for the following reasons.

Based on the responses submitted to the court’s inquiries by the Migration Service Department of the Police Department and the information contained in the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ population documentation database, the plaintiff’s residence in the disputed apartment since April 22, 1982 was reliably established. She has been registered at this address to the present day. The plaintiff openly uses the property, and throughout the entire period she had not received any claims from the owner of the property, represented by the Akimat, concerning her residence in the disputed apartment or any demand for her eviction.

Part 6 of Article 84 of the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code (APPC) provides an exhaustive list of cases in which a participant in an administrative procedure loses the right to invoke the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. None of these grounds arose in the present case.

Furthermore, the court of first instance identified an inconsistency in the decision adopted on the plaintiff’s application for legalization of the property.

In 2007, the plaintiff submitted two applications for the legalization of the apartment and the land plot. With regard to the land plot, the legalization commission adopted a decision refusing legalization.

As regards the apartment, according to the archive’s response dated January 19, 2023, a decision stating “Paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the Law” was adopted in respect of the plaintiff’s application No. 12872 concerning the apartment.

Paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the Law provides that, where the requirements established by the Law are complied with, the commission shall adopt a decision on the legalization of the immovable property.

Thus, there was a contradiction between the decision of the legalization commission concerning the apartment, as reflected in the minutes, and the decision issued to the plaintiff regarding the circumstances of legalization. This was confirmed by the documents attached to the case file.

In view of the above-established circumstances, the courts concluded that the absence of title documents, where the plaintiff’s residence in the residential building subject to demolition for more than 40 years had been confirmed, did not constitute grounds for refusing to provide the plaintiff with housing, since the State, through its state bodies, is obliged to take measures to provide housing to citizens belonging to socially vulnerable groups who have no other means of resolving their housing issues.

At the same time, the court noted that the respondents have administrative discretion when resolving issues concerning the provision of housing through the conclusion of lease agreements for the apartments to be provided.

The administrative case is currently pending before the Judicial Panel for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court (No. 6001-23-00-6ap/3354).

Another case from the practice of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Astana concerning claims to declare unlawful a refusal to conclude a lease agreement and to compel the conclusion of a lease agreement.

For reference: By the decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Astana dated April 21, 2022, T.’s claim against the state institution seeking to declare unlawful the refusal to conclude a lease agreement and to compel the conclusion of a lease agreement was granted.

By the ruling of the appellate instance dated July 14, 2022, the decision was upheld without amendment. The court established that the plaintiff had previously resided at the relevant address and had borne the burden of maintaining the room. The above-mentioned residential building was declared unsafe by a protocol of the interdepartmental commission and included in the list of unsafe and dilapidated multi-storey residential buildings in Astana.

By the minutes of the meeting of the Housing Commission, the plaintiff was refused new housing due to the absence of title documents for the unsafe housing she occupied.

On March 9, 2021, the local executive body provided the plaintiff with an apartment for her use.

The court established that, by the decision of the Baikonyr District Court of Astana dated August 5, 2021, the fact that T. had been issued an order in 1974 granting her a room in a building subsequently declared unsafe had been established.

On October 19, 2021, this decision was annulled by the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Astana City Court, which adopted a new decision dismissing the claim. Subsequently, by the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 6, 2021, the plaintiff’s petition to refer for cassation review the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Astana City Court dated October 19, 2021 was denied.

On December 27, 2021, the plaintiff applied to the respondent for the conclusion of a lease agreement. On January 11, 2022, the respondent refused to conclude the lease agreement due to the absence of legal grounds.

In granting the claim, the court took into account the following circumstance.

In its ruling dated October 19, 2021, the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Astana City Court stated that, taking into account the evidence of the plaintiff’s long-term residence in the demolished dormitory and the absence of any dispute concerning the fact of her residence, the plaintiff was entitled to choose another method of protecting her rights by applying to the local executive body for the conclusion of a lease agreement. In the event of refusal to grant the application, the plaintiff was entitled to exercise her right to challenge the actions of the authorized body in accordance with the established procedure. That ruling concerned the existence of the order, rather than the fact of lawful long-term residence.

Pursuant to subparagraph 5) of Article 68 of the Law, the plaintiff is an old-age pensioner and belongs to the category of citizens classified as socially vulnerable groups of the population.

For the purpose of restoring the plaintiff’s violated rights, the court considered it necessary to impose on the respondent an obligation to renew the lease agreement for the disputed room with the plaintiff, since the refusal to conclude a lease agreement with the plaintiff violated the principles established by administrative legislation.

By the ruling of the cassation instance of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 30, 2023, the judicial acts of the local courts were upheld (No. 6001-22-00-6ap/1653).

Conciliation Procedures

The APPC provides for the possibility of conducting conciliation procedures in disputes arising from public-law relations. At the same time, conciliation between the parties is permitted where the respondent has administrative discretion. This provision of the legislation is justified by the fact that violations of the rights of an individual or legal entity may be remedied by annulling the contested act or by the state body or official discontinuing the relevant action.

Based on mutual concessions, the parties may fully or partially terminate an administrative case by concluding a settlement agreement, a mediation agreement, or an agreement on the settlement of a dispute through a participatory procedure at any stage of the administrative proceedings, until the court retires to deliberate and render its decision.

The court’s adoption of measures to reconcile the parties and its assistance in settling the dispute at all stages of the proceedings follows from the objectives of administrative justice. Maintaining a neutral position with regard to the parties’ claims, the court explains to the parties their right to conduct conciliation procedures and the legal consequences of entering into such agreements.

At the same time, the application of the principles of the APPC within administrative proceedings (the active role of the court, fairness, proportionality), procedural coercive measures (monetary penalties), and conciliation procedures has significantly improved the quality of adjudication of cases in the category under review.

Thus, implementation of the principle of the active role of the court contributes to the resolution of the dispute by the court or to the withdrawal of the claim due to an amicable settlement of the dispute or clarification of the prospects of the case. For example, the respondent may itself annul the contested act or take actions that eliminate the subject matter of the dispute.

Jurisdiction

When considering disputes arising from housing legal relations, compliance with the rules of jurisdiction, the filing of claims by persons entitled to bring such claims, and the correct determination of the subject matter of the claim are of particular importance for resolving disputes.

Jurisdiction is determined in accordance with Articles 102, 103 and 106 of the APPC. Upon the plaintiff’s application, cases falling within the jurisdiction of specialized district and equivalent administrative courts may be heard by the court at the plaintiff’s place of residence, except for cases falling within the jurisdiction of specialized district and equivalent administrative courts located within cities of republican significance, the capital, and regional centers.

Pursuant to Article 103 of the APPC, military courts hear administrative cases based on claims brought by military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan, other troops and military formations, as well as citizens undergoing military training, where the respondent is a military administration body or military unit, except for cases falling within the jurisdiction of other specialized courts.

If a military court has not been established within the relevant administrative-territorial unit, administrative cases falling within its jurisdiction shall be heard by specialized district and equivalent administrative courts in accordance with the procedure established by this Code.

The analysis showed that, for the most part, claims filed with the courts were accepted in compliance with the rules of jurisdiction and did not cause any difficulties for the courts.

At the same time, where there is a military court in the region, issues arise concerning the proper determination of jurisdiction over cases involving claims for the appointment of a one-time housing payment (ЕЖВ).

Thus, a targeted housing payment (ТЖВ) is assigned to active military personnel, and jurisdiction over disputes concerning such payments falls within the competence of military courts. Whereas ЕЖВ is assigned upon the dismissal of a military servicemember and, due to the loss of the relevant status by one of the parties to the dispute, special jurisdiction no longer applies.

Based on the above judicial practice, it should be noted that the proper determination of jurisdiction is important by virtue of the constitutional provision, and compliance with jurisdictional rules in administrative cases must be ensured in accordance with Articles 102 and 103 of the APPC.

Procedure for Conducting Proceedings in a Case

Pursuant to Articles 146 and 148 of the APPC, an administrative case shall be considered and resolved within a reasonable period, but no later than three months from the date the claim is filed.

Judicial proceedings are conducted in accordance with the rules of the Civil Procedure Code, except for the specific features established by Article 147 of the APPC. With the consent of the parties, the court may consider an administrative case through written proceedings within a reasonable period, but not exceeding three months from the date the claim is filed.

After registration of the claim, at the stages of the preliminary hearing and judicial proceedings, the court, within the framework of its active role, assists in developing the plaintiffs’ correct legal position.

In general, the courts of the Republic considered cases in this category in compliance with the above requirements.

Persons Participating in the Case

Pursuant to Article 26 of the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code (APPC), participants in administrative proceedings are the plaintiff, respondent, interested person, and prosecutor.

At the same time, in housing disputes, pursuant to Article 31 of the APPC, the prosecutor generally does not participate.

The persons participating in the case are determined by the plaintiff when filing the claim with the court. The persons entitled to bring a claim before the court are specified in Articles 67–68 of the Law.

At the preliminary hearing, the court determines the persons whose rights, freedoms, or legitimate interests may be affected by an administrative act or administrative action (inaction). Such persons are subsequently involved in the proceedings as interested persons in accordance with the relevant provisions of the APPC.

The analysis showed that, in claims brought by military personnel and employees of law enforcement and special state bodies (SSB) concerning TЖВ and ЕЖВ payments, the respondent is the relevant territorial administrative body under which the housing commissions that adopted the contested decisions have been established (military units, institutions of the Penal Enforcement System, Police Departments, line departments, security services, etc.). Where necessary, a higher-level state body (Committee, Ministry) is involved as an interested person.

In claims brought by citizens against local executive bodies (LEBs), the respondent is the Akim of the relevant administrative-territorial unit and/or the Department of Housing and Communal Services or the Department of Housing Relations.

Pursuant to subparagraph 12) of paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Law “On Local State Administration and Self-Government in the Republic of Kazakhstan,” the Akimat of a district (a city of regional significance), in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, organizes the construction and distribution of housing from the municipal housing fund.

Under paragraph 1 of Article 77 of the Law, housing from the municipal housing fund or housing leased by the local executive body from the private housing fund is provided at the place of residence of the applicant by decision of the local executive body on the basis of a decision of the housing commission.

Housing commissions of local executive bodies operating on a permanent basis are established under the respective local executive bodies. The authorized body is the local executive body providing the housing.

In each particular case, the respondents must be correctly identified based on the subject matter and grounds of the plaintiff’s claim, the respondent’s objections, the laws applicable to the dispute, and the legal status and powers of the authorized bodies.

Where a claim is brought against an improper respondent, pursuant to Articles 16 and 116 of the APPC, in order to avoid delays in resolving the dispute, the court should explain to the plaintiff the procedure for replacing the improper respondent with the proper respondent in accordance with Article 29 of the APPC.

The practice of the local courts indicates that there is no need to involve members of housing commissions as respondents.

A decision granting a claim is enforced by the administrative body, the Akim, or the Department of Housing and Communal Services. No difficulties or problematic issues have arisen in the enforcement of court decisions that have entered into legal force.

Evidence and Burden of Proof

Although, pursuant to Article 129 of the APPC, in claims challenging an administrative act or action, the burden of proof rests with the administrative body, the administrative body/housing commission has access only to the information contained in government information-exchange systems. As a rule, when making decisions, local executive bodies do not request additional documents from persons on the housing waiting list.

At the same time, the nature of proof in housing disputes requires the submission of evidence, the information contained in which is protected by law or which, due to its nature, can only be provided by the plaintiff (mortgage agreements, bank certificates, certificates from places of employment or study, service records), or which is personal in nature (information concerning family composition).

Thus, as evidence:

a) in claims challenging decisions of housing commissions of local executive bodies to exclude persons from the housing waiting list, plaintiffs may submit documents confirming that they belong to the relevant category of persons on the waiting list (service records from human resources departments, certificates from the place of employment of civil servants, disability certificates, birth certificates for all children, divorce certificates, certificates confirming registered property rights of all family members, etc.);

as evidence of residence (and non-departure), plaintiffs may submit certificates from educational institutions and places of employment, witness testimony, and reports (character references) from local police inspectors.

Time Limits for Filing a Claim (Practice Concerning Restoration of Time Limits)

The time limits for filing claims are established by Chapter 20 of the APPC and, in particular, are regulated by Article 136 of the APPC.

As a general rule, a time limit for filing a claim that has been missed for a valid reason may be restored by the court in accordance with the rules of the Civil Procedure Code. The reasons for missing the time limit for filing a claim with the court and their significance for the proper resolution of the administrative case are clarified by the court at the preliminary hearing.

Missing the time limit for filing a claim with the court without a valid reason, as well as the impossibility of restoring the missed time limit for applying to the court, constitutes grounds for returning the claim.

At the same time, it should be taken into account that, pursuant to part 5 of Article 136 of the APPC, a person who did not participate in the administrative procedure, but whose rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests are affected by an administrative act, is entitled to file a claim with the court within one month from the date on which that person learned or should have learned about the adoption of the administrative act, but no later than one year from the date of its adoption.

Application of Procedural Coercive Measures

Where a violation of procedural legislation is established during the consideration of a case, procedural coercive measures are applied in accordance with Chapter 18 of the APPC.

Pursuant to Article 127 of the APPC, the court may impose a monetary penalty on a person who abuses procedural rights or fails to perform procedural duties, including where evidence is submitted or court instructions are executed in violation of the time limit established by the court without valid reasons, if this results in a delay in the consideration of the administrative case. The penalty may be imposed for each action (inaction) in the amount of ten monthly calculation indices (MCIs).

For failure to comply with a court requirement or request, failure of a person participating in an administrative case to appear in court, failure to notify the court in a timely manner, late submission of a response, failure to comply with the instructions of the presiding judge during a court hearing, violation of the rules established by the court, as well as other actions (inaction) that clearly demonstrate disrespect for the court and/or judge, the court may impose a monetary penalty in the amount of twenty MCIs.

For failure to comply with a court judgment or a court ruling approving an agreement between the parties on conciliation, mediation, or settlement of the dispute through a participatory procedure, the court imposes a monetary penalty on the respondent in the amount of fifty MCIs, specifying in the same judicial act a period not exceeding one month within which the judgment or ruling must be complied with.

During the period under review, the courts developed a practice of applying procedural coercive measures in the form of monetary penalties.

In this category of disputes, monetary penalties are most frequently imposed on respondents for the following reasons:

• failure to submit a response in a timely manner;
• failure to provide the administrative case materials in a timely manner or providing them incompletely;
• failure to appear at a court hearing (or failure to connect online) without a valid reason.

Abbreviations Used

APPC – Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

CPC – Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

CC – Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

NPR SC – Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

IS – Information System

ACSC SC – Administrative Cases Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

ACSC or the Collegium – Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases

SDAIC – Specialized District and Interdistrict Administrative Court

MIA – Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan

MD – Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Kazakhstan

NSC – National Security Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan

GP – General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan

DES – Department for Emergency Situations

SSB – Special State Bodies

PD – Police Department

ТЖВ – Current Housing Payments

ЕЖВ – One-Time Housing Payments

GHF – State Housing Fund

LEBs – Local Executive Bodies

The principal regulatory legal acts governing housing disputes are:

• Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
• APPC;
• CC;
• CPC;
• Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Housing Relations” (hereinafter – the Law on Housing Relations);
• Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On State Property” (hereinafter – the Law on State Property);
• Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Military Service and the Status of Military Personnel” (hereinafter – the Law on Military Service);
• Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Law Enforcement Service” (hereinafter – the Law on Law Enforcement Bodies);
• Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Legal Acts” (hereinafter – the Law on Legal Acts);
• Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Judicial Practice in Applying Legislation on Privatization by Citizens of Residential Premises from the State Housing Fund” dated 18 July 1997 No. 9.

As well as subordinate regulatory legal acts:

• Rules for Providing Official Housing to Military Personnel, Calculating the Amount, Assigning, Recalculating, Making, Terminating, Suspending and Resuming Housing Payments, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 49 dated 12 February 2018 (hereinafter – Rules No. 49);
• Rules for the Provision of Monetary Compensation, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 50 dated 12 February 2018 (hereinafter – Rules No. 50);
• Rules for Providing Official Housing to Employees of Internal Affairs Bodies, Calculating the Amount, Assigning, Recalculating, Making, Terminating, Suspending and Resuming Housing Payments, as well as Categories of Positions of Internal Affairs Employees Entitled to Housing Payments, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 524 dated 5 August 2021 (hereinafter – Rules No. 524);
• Rules for Privatization of Housing from the State Housing Fund, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 673 dated 2 July 2013 (hereinafter – Rules No. 673);
• Rules for the Provision of the State Service “Registration and Placement on the Waiting List, as well as Adoption by Local Executive Bodies of a Decision to Provide Housing to Citizens in Need of Housing from the State Housing Fund or Housing Leased by a Local Executive Body from the Private Housing Fund”, approved by Order No. 441 of the Acting Minister of Industry and Infrastructure Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 13 August 2021;
• Rules for the Transfer of State Property Assigned to State Legal Entities from One Type of State Ownership to Another, approved by Order No. 85 of the Minister of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 26 May 2023;
• Rules for Registering Citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan in Need of Housing from the State Housing Fund or Housing Leased by a Local Executive Body from the Private Housing Fund, approved by Order No. 168 of the Minister of Industry and Construction of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 27 December 2023.

If an international treaty ratified by the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes rules other than those provided for by the Law on Housing Relations, the rules of the international treaty shall apply.

Pursuant to Articles 10 and 12 of the Law on Legal Acts, codes have greater legal force than laws; where there are contradictions between provisions of regulatory legal acts of different levels, the provisions of the higher-level act shall apply.

As a general rule established by Article 4 of the Civil Code and Article 43 of the Law on Legal Acts, regulatory legal acts apply to relations that arise after the relevant acts have entered into force.

President    

Republic of Kazakhstan     

 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 Declaration Decree Order Resolution Decision Report Conclusion Statement Conclusion Convention Contract Memorandum Methodology Norms Note Rules Program Charter Charter Article Commentary Resolution Regulations Protocol Draft Program Rules Messages