On challenging the conclusion recognizing the primary legalization of a car as legitimate, restoring the state registration of a car
No. 6001-24-00-6ap/3460 dated April 08, 2025
Plaintiffs: T.T., M.K.
Defendants: State Institution "Administrative Police Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (KAP MIA) State Institution "Regional Police Department" (DP)
The subject of the dispute: on challenging the conclusion of January 23, 2023, recognizing the primary legalization of a car as legitimate, restoring the state registration of a car
Review of the plaintiffs' cassation complaint PLOT:
On April 20, 2024, the plaintiffs applied to the DP Administrative Police Department with an application for making adjustments to the vehicle legalization database for a 2002 Lexus RX 300 car (hereinafter referred to as the Car).
The statement is justified by the fact that according to the new response of the Traffic Police of the National Security Committee dated March 27, 2023 addressed to the plaintiff, T.T., the car crossed the State border as cargo on March 1, 2020.
On May 2, 2023, M.K. was notified of the Car's adjustment, and on June 15, 2023, it was registered in Kazakhstan.
On December 4, 2023, the DP received a submission from the Transport Prosecutor's Office of the region on the elimination of violations of the law in connection with the identification of the fact of using fictitious certificates of entry to Kazakhstan for vehicles, including a car.
By the submission of the Military Prosecutor's Office of the garrison dated January 3, 2024, it was proposed to take measures to cancel decisions on the legalization and registration of vehicles.
A criminal case has been opened on this fact under part one of Article 385 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (forgery, manufacture or sale of forged documents). A handwriting examination has been ordered as part of the criminal case.
The conclusion of the expert of the Institute of Forensic Examinations dated April 19, 2024, established that the signatures of T.D., located on the second sheet of the certificate in the name of T.T. dated March 27, 2023, issued by the Traffic Police of the National Security Committee, for the Car were not made by T.D. himself, but by another person with imitation of his original signature.
The DP notification dated February 5, 2024 informed M.K. that the registration of the Car was terminated on February 2, 2024.
On May 20, 2024, M.K. filed a complaint with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan, to which the DP received a reply rejecting the complaint.
Disagreeing with this, the plaintiffs appealed to the court with the above claim.
Judicial acts:
I am the authority: the claim was denied.
Appeal: the decision of the court of first instance remains unchanged.
Cassation: judicial acts in this case are upheld.
Conclusions: rejecting the claim, SMAS proceeded from the fact that (key arguments):
According to paragraph 11 of the Rule3, vehicles are subject to a fee rate for their initial state registration in the amount of 200,000 tenge if the vehicle meets the following requirements: imported into Kazakhstan before September 1, 2022; is not wanted; removed from state registration at the place of former registration with the competent authority of another state; passed customs clearance;
It follows from the explanations of the plaintiff, T.T., that he did not take out an insurance policy, and the State Revenue Department does not have information about the date when the Car crossed the State Border. Thus, the fact that the plaintiffs provided a forged document from the Border Guard Service of the National Security Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan in order to legalize the vehicle at a discounted fee rate has been reliably established.;
By virtue of subparagraph 6) of paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Road Traffic" (the Law), vehicle registration and modification of registration data are prohibited in the case of submission of forged (forged) documents.;
The conclusion of the Administrative Division DP of January 23, 2024, contested by the plaintiff, contains information on the need to terminate the state registration of the plaintiffs' Car in connection with their use of a fictitious certificate during its legalization.;
The arguments of the plaintiff T.T. that the above-mentioned criminal case was terminated due to the absence of corpus delicti cannot be taken into account, since the decision of the deputy prosecutor of the city of March 1, 2024 refused to approve the decision to terminate the criminal case.;
The plaintiffs' claims 2) and 3) are derived from claim 1), and therefore, the actions of the defendant, represented by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Department, to terminate the registration of a Car based on the conclusion of the Administrative Division of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 23, 2024, were committed in accordance with the competence of the state body.;
the termination of the state registration of the Car was carried out in connection with the provision of a forged document by its owners, which the plaintiffs could not have been unaware of, since they initially received a certificate from the traffic police of the National Security Committee of a different content.;
By virtue of part four of Article 155 of the CPC, the court refuses to satisfy the claim if, upon its consideration, it finds that the contested action (inaction) has been committed, the decision has been made in accordance with the competence and legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
While leaving the SMAS decision unchanged, the Court of Appeal agreed with its conclusions in full.
Having checked the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, the judicial board considered that they corresponded to the circumstances of the case and the applicable norms of industry and procedural legislation, respectively, the judicial acts appealed by the cassator were rendered lawfully. The arguments of the cassation complaint that the representative of the NAO person concerned improperly participated in the courts of previous instances, about the actions of the cassators after the announcement of the decision of the SCAD they appealed, as well as other arguments, including on the circumstances of the case, do not refute the conclusions of the courts and do not affect their correctness and validity.
Considering the above, there is no need to further substantiate the conclusions of the local courts, which are detailed and reasonably set out in their judicial acts, and the judicial board agreed with them. The courts clarified the circumstances of the dispute to the extent sufficient for its legal resolution, and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. In this regard, there are no legal grounds for the cancellation or amendment of the judicial acts contested by the cassators, as well as there are no grounds for satisfying their cassation appeal.
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
