Lawyer in Almaty Establishing the fact of residence in a certain area of legal importance

K. applied to the court to establish the fact of living in a certain area. The applicant based his claims on the fact that he was born on January 12, 1964 in the village of Terenkol village Council of Vostochny Shcherbaktinsky (now Lebyazhinsky) district of Pavlodar region. The establishment of this fact is necessary for him to receive preferential payments, as he lived on the territory of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site in 1964-1990. It is impossible to establish the legal fact of his residence in1975-1976 in this area in any other way, since according to the archival information in the household books of the village of Terenkol of the Eastern Rural Council of the Lebyazhinsky district of the Pavlodar region on 1964-1966, 1967-1968, 1969-1971, 1972-1974, 1977-1979, 1980-1982, 1983-1985, 1986-1990 The years listed are K., born in 1964, for the years 1975-1976 The name is K., born in 1964. The court decision of March 25, 2016 established the fact of K.'s residence in the village of Terenkol of the Eastern Village Council of the Lebyazhinsky district of the Pavlodar region in 1975-1976.

It seems that the application was satisfied reasonably, since such a fact gives rise to legal consequences, the applicant has no other way to obtain an appropriate document certifying the fact, the current legislation does not provide for another (out-of-court) procedure for establishing it, and establishing the fact is not associated with the subsequent resolution of a dispute over the law under the jurisdiction of the court. A. appealed to the court with an application for establishing the fact of his return from a business trip. He indicated that he served in the military unit 2091 of the Zharkent border detachment. In April 1994, according to the terms of the contract, he left for the military unit 2022 of the city of Khorog in the Republic of Tajikistan, where he served in the Moscow border detachment of the 7th Vanch outpost for three months. He arrived at military unit 2091 on July 26, 1994, but these data are missing. The establishment of a legal fact is necessary for the registration of benefits. Granting the application, the court pointed out that the applicant, participating in a peacekeeping battalion to guard the Tajik-Afghan border, had been sent on a 3-month business trip under a contract from military unit 2091 of the Zharkent border detachment to the Republic of Tajikistan. The order of the commander of unit No. 100 dated April 23, 1994 was issued to send him on a business trip. This is confirmed by the archival certificate of the Special State Archive of the Border Guard Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 15-7-4-A-61/A1411 dated April 1, 2013. According to the same certificate, there is no information about the applicant's arrival at military unit 2091. The Uralsk City Defense Administration has submitted correspondence with various archival authorities since 2011, according to which the required information has not been found. At the hearing, witness B. testified that, together with A., in May 1993, he was drafted into the army in the military unit 2091 of the border detachment of the city of Zharkent. He confirmed that the applicant had been on a business trip to Tajikistan for three months, and from there they were brought back in an orderly manner 3 months later. Under the circumstances, the application was granted.

It seems that if there is appropriate reliable evidence, the court can be satisfied with this fact. The decision of the court No. 2 of the city of Uralsk dated January 26, 2017 satisfied the application of Sh. on the establishment of the legal fact of the decision of the commission for the legalization of real estate in the territory of the city of Uralsk, the rights to which are not registered in accordance with the legislation of June 27, 2007 No. 11725, on the legalization of a land plot located at the address: Uralsk, ul. 25th Chapaevskaya division, 1, sq. 3, with an area of 0.0609 ha, for the maintenance of an apartment building. The Court of first instance proceeded from the fact that it follows from the applicant's submitted documents that the applicant, who is the daughter of the deceased G., applied to various state authorities for a decision dated June 27, 2007 No. 11725 on the legalization by her mother of a land plot of 0.0609 hectares located in the city of Uralsk, ul. The 25th Chapaevskaya division, 1, sq.3, for the maintenance of an apartment building, to which I received answers about the impossibility of providing a solution due to the disbandment of the legalization commission, and the decision of the legalization commission has not been preserved in the state archives. It is clear from the notification of the Uralsk City Department of Justice that due to the lack of a title document, registration of the land plot is impossible. The act on the right of private ownership of the land plot was issued on the basis of the decision of the Commission on legalization of the city of Uralsk dated June 27, 2007 No. 11725. There is a decision of the meeting of the commission for the legalization of real estate, which decided to accept the documents for further consideration. The court concluded that, in fact, the commission had made a positive decision, since subsequently, on January 25, 2008, a state act on the land plot was issued on the grounds of the above-mentioned decision. It appears that such facts can also be established by the court, since the applicant's claims are based on the provisions of Articles 304, 305, 306 of the CPC. By the decision of the district court in satisfaction of the claims of N. It was refused to establish the legal fact of having a work record. By the decision of the court of appeal, the decision of the court of first instance was changed, the stated claims were partially satisfied. The legal fact of N.'s work was established in the period from September 25, 1975 to December 8, 1995 at the Amangeldy state farm in the Telmansky (currently Bukhar-Zhyrau) district of the Karaganda region as a milkmaid. Regarding the refusal to satisfy N.'s claims to establish the fact of work experience in the period from December 8, 1995 to December 31, 1997, the court's decision remained unchanged. Establishing the legal fact of N.'s work in the period from September 25, 1975 to December 8, 1995 at the state farm as a milkmaid, the court of appeal concluded that archival data on the Amangeldy state farm in the Telmansky district of the Karaganda region had not been preserved, and having lost her work record, N. really did not have the opportunity to obtain documents, confirming her work at this state farm. Her employment was confirmed at a court hearing by a witness who worked from September 25, 1975 to December 8, 1995 at the Amangeldy state farm in the Telmansky district of the Karaganda region. The conclusions of the court of appeal are reasonable.

U. applied to the court with an application to establish the fact of an error by the state notary of the village of Borovskoye, Kustanai region, made in the purchase and sale agreement dated March 24, 1992. The applicant stated that on March 24, 1992, he had purchased the house on the basis of the specified contract, registered by the state notary K. in register No. 336, however, an error had been made in the contract. The address of the house is incorrect. Currently, there is a need to sell this house, however, when contacting the State Department, the applicant became aware that this purchase and sale agreement had not been registered due to the incorrect address of the household, the owner is still V., who left for permanent residence in the Russian Federation. Due to a mistake, the GU denied him registration of ownership rights. Currently, the notary does not work in the village of Borovskoye. Satisfying the stated requirements, the court indicated that there was no dispute about this house. Since March 24, 1992, the applicant has owned the real estate in good faith, openly and continuously as his own. A notice of the hearing was sent to seller V.  The witness K. was interviewed, who explained that V. was his relative, knew that she had a house on Berezovaya Street, and he did not know how she disposed of it. The court provided references to the certificate issued for submission to the state office for notarial acts dated March 11, 1992, No. 32, which states that the subject of registration is house 17, located at the address: Borovskoye village, Berezovaya St., to the certificate of inheritance right under the will of the seller V., to the certificate of the name of U. on registration of real estate in the BTI dated March 13, 1992. The decision also states that the actual sale of a house located at 17 Berezovaya Street, Borovskoye village, and not a household at 17 Gogol Street, Borovskoye village. 38, is confirmed by the technical characteristics of the household, which are specified in the contract, and correspond to the technical characteristics (technical passport) of the house located in the village of Borovskoye, Berezovaya str., 17. 

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