If a party retains the evidence required by the court and does not submit it at the request of the court within the time limit set by the court, it is assumed that the information contained therein is directed against the interests of that party and is considered recognized by it.
This rule has been applied by the courts in the 6 cases studied. For example, in the case of H.'s statement. A request was sent to a third party, the State Institution for the expulsion of the applicant's inspection materials, to the Russian State Institution for the recognition of the unlawful and cancellation of the notification by the court. The Prosecutor General's Office did not ensure the appearance of a representative at the court hearing and did not provide the requested evidence. The court applied the provisions of part nine of Article 73 of the CPC and pointed out that withholding evidence required by the court and failing to submit it at the request of the court within the time limit set by the court is regarded as the presence of information in it directed against the interests of this party and is considered recognized by it. Failure to provide the evidence available to the parties to the court precludes the possibility of presenting this evidence to the court of appeal and cassation instances. In connection with the failure to provide the requested information to the court, the court issued a private ruling against the State Institution. Based on the results of the review, it was reported that officials were instructed to prevent such violations in the future, and a seminar was held on knowledge of the current legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
If a party retains the evidence required by the court and does not submit it at the request of the court within the time limit set by the court, it is assumed that the information contained therein is directed against the interests of that party and is considered recognized by it.
In the case of the application of LLP to the Russian State University, the State Institution for recognizing actions as illegal and canceling the notification of repayment of tax arrears, the same court issued a private ruling against the State Institution. The recipient only duplicated the previous reply. The same assessment, applying part nine of Article 73 of the CPC, was given by the court of the Karaganda region when considering the case on the claim of A. to the KGP, K. for compensation for moral damage due to poor-quality provision of medical services and satisfied the claim. The medical records of the plaintiff requested by the court were not presented by the hospital due to their loss, which was an obstacle for the Balkhash City Court to appoint a forensic medical examination in the case. In the case of M.'s claim to the KSU for recognition of illegal orders, the claim was denied by the decision of the Aral District Court. The plaintiff did not submit the documents during the preliminary court hearing. The court's conclusions are based on part nine of Article 73 of the CPC.
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
