On challenging the order of the Ministry of Energy on the elimination of violations
No. 6001-24-00-6ap/3181 dated May 2, 2025
Plaintiff: Company "N" (hereinafter referred to as the Company).
Respondent: Russian State Institution "Interregional Directorate of State Inspection in the Oil and Gas Complex of the Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as the Inspection)
The subject of the dispute: the challenge of the regulation on the elimination of violations.
Review of the defendant's cassation complaint PLOT:
The Company filed the above claim with the Inspection.
By the decision of the court of first instance of June 14, 2024, the claim was satisfied. The contested order was declared illegal and cancelled.
By the decision of the appeals board dated September 12, 2024, the decision of the court of first instance remained unchanged.
Judicial acts:
1st instance: the claim is satisfied.
Appeal: the decision of the court of first instance remains unchanged.
Cassation: judicial acts in this case are upheld.
Conclusions: by resolving the dispute and satisfying the claim, the local courts came to the correct conclusion that the contested regulation did not comply with the requirements of the law, including regarding compliance with the procedure for its registration.
According to article 79 of the CPC, an administrative act must be lawful and justified, be clear to understand and ensure uniform application.
Subparagraph 6) of paragraph 6 of Article 152 of the PC provides for the requirements for the content and procedure for issuing a prescription based on the results of preventive control with a visit to the subject (object) of control and supervision and (or) verification by an official of the control and supervision body, according to which the prescription for the elimination of identified violations indicates a list of identified violations in accordance with the paragraphs of the requirements of the checklist with mandatory indication of the severity of the violation in accordance with the subjective criteria for assessing the degree of risk.
It has been established that paragraphs 1-7 of the regulation specify the points of the checklist, but they do not contain a description of the nature of
violations with reference to articles, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of regulatory legal acts, the provisions of which are violated. From the content of the contested administrative act, it is impossible to establish which violations provided for in the paragraphs of the checklist were identified by the Inspectorate.
In addition, in violation of the requirements of subparagraph 7) of paragraph 6 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code, the contested order does not specify what specific measures the plaintiff needs to take to eliminate the violations identified, there are only general formulations "it is recommended that the issue be worked out".
It was also established that the act on the results of preventive control was signed by only two officials, E.M., N.J. and the specialist N.A. involved, whereas the act on the appointment of the inspection indicated seven officials authorized to conduct the inspection.
According to part 3 of Article 13 of the CPC, an illegal administrative act adopted through the fault of an administrative body or official, as well as an illegal administrative act (inaction) committed through the fault of an administrative body or official, cannot entail burdensome consequences for a participant in an administrative procedure.
As a result of the Inspection's failure to comply with the above-mentioned legal requirements, the local courts made the correct decision to cancel the contested order.
In general, the arguments of the defendant's cassation complaint were the subject of research by local courts, which were given a full and proper legal assessment in accordance with the requirements of the APPC and the PC. The plaintiff's cassation complaint does not contain any new arguments.
Since the circumstances of the case were established correctly by the courts, the norms of substantive and procedural law were applied correctly, the collegium does not find any grounds for canceling or changing judicial acts.
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
