If violations are committed by government agencies, officials and civil servants, the court issues and sends a private ruling.

One of the tasks of civil proceedings, enshrined in article 4 of the CPC, is the prevention of offenses, which can be achieved by issuing private rulings, which falls within the exclusive competence of the court. In accordance with part 1 of Article 270 of the CPC, the grounds for making private rulings are cases of violations of legality identified at a court hearing, and if violations are committed by government agencies, officials and civil servants, the court issues and sends a private ruling to the relevant organizations, officials or other persons performing managerial functions. It follows from this that a private definition is a measure of the court's response to violations of substantive and procedural law identified during the consideration of a civil case within the framework of the dispute in question. A private definition must be lawful and justified, contain a reference to regulatory legal acts, the essence of violations identified by the court, the persons who committed them, and the evidence that led to the adoption of judicial response measures. Responding to detected violations is not the responsibility of the court, but as soon as they are discovered by the courts, measures should be taken to prevent them and identify the causes that contributed to the violations. Thus, particular definitions are preventive, preventive and educational in nature. An analysis of the cases submitted for summary showed that the courts of the republic make private rulings mainly in cases of public procurement; on appealing actions (inaction) of bailiffs; on labor disputes; on land disputes; on housing disputes; according to contractual relations and facts established during court proceedings. For example, the Eskeldinsky District Court of the Almaty region considered a civil case on the claim of D. V. I. for recognition of the purchase and sale transaction as valid.

If violations are committed by government agencies, officials and civil servants, the court issues and sends a private ruling.

The court found that in 2004, D. purchased an apartment building with a plot of land from I., located in the village of Korzhumbai, without numbering the house and naming the street. This property is registered with the authorized body. In accordance with article 14 of the Law "On the Administrative and Territorial Structure of the Republic of Kazakhstan", the akim of a settlement, village, rural district, taking into account the opinion of the population of the relevant territory, decides on the naming, renaming of the constituent parts of these settlements, as well as clarifying and changing the transcription of their names based on the conclusion of the regional onomastic commission. According to article 9 of the Rules for Addressing Real Estate in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a permanent address is assigned to all existing, as well as newly built buildings, structures that have been commissioned and have title documents. Taking into account that the disputed real estate object has been put into operation, has been duly registered with the authorized body, a technical passport of the individual housing stock has been issued for it, however, there is no numbering and indication of the street on which it is located, the court reasonably drew the attention of the akim of Kaynarli rural district to the establishment and naming of the constituent parts of the objects located in the village of Korzhumbai. This particular definition served as the basis for the local executive body to carry out a number of measures for naming streets and numbering houses located in the village of Korzhumbai, that is, it gave a positive result.

Violations in the activities of the Russian State Institution "Department of State Revenue for the West Kazakhstan region" were revealed during the consideration of a civil case on an application for recognition of movable property as ownerless and its conversion to state revenue. The court found that a criminal case was initiated by the resolution of the DBEKP in the West Kazakhstan Region dated October 5, 2013 on the fact of economic smuggling of two Volkswagen vehicles across the customs border of the Customs Union into the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which was terminated by a resolution dated March 31, 2015 in connection with the enactment of a law abolishing criminal liability for the deed. At the same time, the material on the grounds of an administrative offense was allocated to a separate proceeding for consideration in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Code. The above-mentioned vehicles were not recognized as material evidence in the framework of the criminal case, however, the resolution on the termination of the criminal case indicates the resolution of the issue of the fate of the material evidence. The initiation of administrative proceedings was refused due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the issue of the fate of the two vehicles was left without resolution. At the time of consideration of the civil case, the customs clearance of the vehicles has not been carried out, and they are not in demand by anyone. Due to the fact that the State Revenue Department has not taken measures and decisions have not been taken to determine the fate of the vehicles, which was the reason for their placement in a temporary storage warehouse for more than four years, and financial costs to the budget, Court No. 2 of the city of Uralsk legitimately issued a private ruling dated June 25, 2019. Incorrect application of the norms of the Land Code was revealed during the consideration of a civil case by the Council of Economic and Social Council of Almaty city on the application of BTA Bank JSC to the State Institution "Office for Control over the Use and Protection of Lands of Almaty City", NAO "Government for Citizens State Corporation" on recognition of illegal regulations, registration of encumbrances of rights.

If violations are committed by government agencies, officials and civil servants, the court issues and sends a private ruling.

Article 94 of the Land Code stipulates that prescriptions are issued in two forms: the first is to take measures to use the land for its intended purpose, and the second is to eliminate violations of the law. The court found that the land plots belonging to the applicant had been prescribed for their intended use for a period of one year. NAO "Government for Citizens State Corporation" has carried out state registration of regulations in the legal cadastre, which contradicts the requirements of Article 5 of the Law "On State Registration of Rights to Immovable Property", according to which encumbrances of rights to immovable property in the form of restrictions are subject to registration, and registration of prescriptions of a recommendatory and preventive nature is not provided for by legislation. Since the actions of the NAO effectively limited the applicant's right to dispose of the land plots owned, the court of first instance reasonably issued a private ruling. The court's response to the defendant's behavior served as the basis for the timely establishment of custody. Thus, the specialized Interdistrict Juvenile Court (hereinafter referred to as the SMSDN) of Astana issued a private ruling on April 23, 2018 in a civil case on the claim of the State Institution "Specialized Children's Home" against S. on restriction of parental rights. It follows from the contents of the said judicial act that S. She gave contradictory testimony in court, explained her desire to communicate with the child, but the lack of opportunities for his maintenance and upbringing, was raised in a dysfunctional family, lives in unsanitary conditions, the social standard of living is low, her mother suffers from a mental disorder. According to part 2 of Article 323 of the CPC, a case on declaring a citizen legally incompetent may be initiated in court at the request of family members, close relatives, regardless of cohabitation with him, a prosecutor, a body performing guardianship and guardianship functions, a psychiatric (neuropsychiatric) medical institution. In this regard, by a private definition, the State Institution "Department of Education under the Akimat of Astana" is responsible for resolving the issue of establishing the legal capacity of S. The result of the execution of a private ruling is the initiation of a corresponding application to the court and subsequently the decision to declare S. incompetent with the establishment of custody over her.

In judicial practice, there are cases of making private rulings in cases of simplified proceedings. Holding a court session implies judicial proceedings, that is, consideration of an application (statement of claim) in a claim, special, special claim proceedings. The CPC, which entered into force on January 1, 2016, provides for simplified proceedings in which cases of no particular complexity are considered without calling the parties, based on a study of the explanations, objections and (or) arguments set out in the documents submitted by the parties. For example, by the decision of the Council of Ministers of the Aktobe region dated January 28, 2019, the claim of "E" LLP against the State Institution "Akim's Office of the Khazret rural district of the Martuk district" for debt collection and penalties was denied. The stated requirement is related to the non-fulfillment by the state institution of the terms of the public procurement contract related to payment for the installation work performed. The court's refusal to satisfy the claim was motivated by the indication that, in violation of the requirements of Article 46 of the Law "On Public Procurement", the contract was not registered with the treasury authorities, therefore it did not enter into legal force, does not entail legal consequences for the parties and is the basis for rejecting the claim. A private ruling was issued in this case, which reflects the fact of concluding a contract without conducting a public procurement procedure and violating the requirements of the Budget Code. As part of the simplified proceedings, the District court No. 2 of the Kokpektinsky district of the East Kazakhstan region on March 12, 2018 issued a private ruling in a civil case on the claim of ARD Collection Agency LLP against K. for debt collection under a bank loan agreement. The reason for its issuance was that the plaintiff's representative, in violation of the requirements of Article 149 of the CPC, did not attach the LLP's charter to the statement of claim, and the certificates of state registration of the legal entity were dated 2017, which did not allow to reliably establish information about the founders, the head, verify the validity of the issued power of attorney, etc. The statement of claim was accepted for court proceedings, and the above documents were submitted to the court two weeks later, which, in the court's opinion, indicates the negligence of the plaintiff's representative towards his duties. Indeed, by virtue of part 1 of Article 149 of the CPC, copies of the charter, certificate or certificate of state registration are attached to the statement of claim if the claim is filed by a legal entity. Failure to comply with this requirement, according to part 1 of Article 152 of the CPC, does not entail the return of the statement of claim.

If violations are committed by government agencies, officials and civil servants, the court issues and sends a private ruling.

Based on the fact that the above documents are necessary for the court to verify the powers of the plaintiff's representative and the legality of the power of attorney issued, the defect was the basis for returning the statement of claim on the basis of subparagraph 3) of part 1 of Article 152 of the CPC (the obligation to attach a document certifying the powers of the representative). Therefore, making a particular definition was unnecessary. By the same court, on the above-mentioned grounds, in a civil case involving a lawsuit filed by KMF Microfinance Organization (KMF) LLP against M. A private ruling dated April 5, 2018 was issued on debt collection. In addition, with reference to Article 43 of the Civil Code, it is stated that the plaintiff's statement of claim identifies the East Kazakhstan Branch, which is not a legal entity and acts in the interests of KMF Microfinance Organization (KMF) LLP. At the same time, the court issued a decision stating KMF Microfinance Organization (KMF) LLP as the plaintiff, which indicates that the plaintiff was replaced by the court. Since the statement of claim was filed by a representative on the basis of a power of attorney from the LLP, and not a branch, when notifying the parties of the consideration of the case in a simplified procedure, the plaintiff should have been notified of the elimination of the defect, and in case of non–elimination, the claim should have been dismissed on the basis of subparagraph 3) of Article 279 of the CPC (the statement of claim was filed by a person who does not have the authority to his presentation). In this regard, a particular definition was made when the norms of procedural law were incorrectly applied. In general, the norms of Article 147 of the CPC provide for the possibility of revoking a decision rendered in a simplified procedure, if there are a set of grounds confirming the impossibility of submitting a review within the prescribed period and evidence that may affect the content of the decision. In case of cancellation of a court decision rendered in a simplified procedure, a transfer to the claim proceedings for the trial is carried out. At the same time, the norms of the CPC do not provide for the court's right to revoke a private ruling issued in a simplified procedure. In this case, a different appeal procedure will be provided for the decision and the private determination. The question arises, what is the procedure for revoking a private ruling in the event of a decision being overturned and the case being considered in a lawsuit, as well as making a decision contrary to the one previously made.

Paragraph 11 of the Regulatory Resolution clarifies that the annulment of a judicial act does not entail the annulment of a private ruling, except in cases where a violation of the legality specified in the private ruling has not been established. This clarification is mainly applied by higher courts. In this regard, there are grounds to supplement the Regulatory Resolution with relevant clarifications on the procedure for issuing and canceling private rulings in cases of simplified proceedings. Courts practice making private rulings against notaries. On May 16, 2018, the Almaty District Court issued a private ruling in a civil case against M. V. D. et al. on the recognition of power of attorney and transactions as invalid. The court found that notary S., in violation of the Law "On Notaries", did not identify the person who applied for the notarial act when certifying the power of attorney. The issued power of attorney was used to conclude a purchase and sale agreement, which is the subject of the dispute. By the decision of the disciplinary commission of the Notary Chamber of the city of Nur-Sultan, the notary's actions revealed signs of disciplinary misconduct and he was punished with a warning. A similar private ruling dated April 19, 2018 was issued by the Aktobe city Court in a civil case on the claim of B. to notary K. and others. on the recognition of the power of attorney as invalid. According to the response of the Chamber of Notaries of Aktobe region, a disciplinary penalty in the form of a reprimand was imposed on the notary. In a civil case on the claim of Yu. k. k. et al. The Taraz City Court issued a private ruling on the recovery of the amount dated February 27, 2019 to the Taraz City Prosecutor. The basis was the revealed fact that the power of attorney was forged. in the name of K. for the removal of a motor vehicle from the register and its sale on behalf of notary C. Since these actions contain signs of a criminal offense provided for in part 1 of Article 385 of the Criminal Code, the court determined that it was necessary to initiate criminal proceedings on the fact of forgery of documents.

In judicial practice, it is not uncommon for civil cases to challenge executive orders caused by unjustified refusal to cancel them or inflated prices of services. Given that certain categories of simplified proceedings have been transferred to the jurisdiction of notaries, it is important to take measures to monitor their activities, but no specific definitions have been established for them. The activity of bailiffs is also the subject of the court's response. The Almaty District Court of Astana city, by a private ruling dated February 1, 2018, drew the attention of the Regional Chamber of the Civil Registry Office of Astana city to the actions of the Civil Registry Office of Zh. The appealed actions of the bailiff are expressed in the fact that, in violation of the requirements of the CPC and the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Bailiffs", enforcement proceedings were initiated and enforcement actions were carried out on the basis of a copy of the court order before the expiration of 10 working days set for filing objections by the debtor. The private ruling of the Aktobe City Court dated June 3, 2019, on the application of Aktobe Social and Entrepreneurial Corporation JSC for recognizing the actions of CHSI M. as illegal, served as the basis for considering the termination of his license. The violations committed consist in the fact that during 1 year and 10 months he did not take measures on the enforcement proceedings in his possession, did not impose encumbrances and restrictions on the debtor and his property, and assessed the property of the pledgor, in respect of which no decision was taken to foreclose. 

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