On some issues of the application of legislation on judicial power in the Republic of Kazakhstan

Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 14, 1998 No. 1.

     For the purpose of uniform application in judicial practice of the norms regulating the issues of ensuring the independence of judges in the administration of justice, the plenary session of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan decides:

     The footnote. The preamble is amended by the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 31.03.2017 No. 2 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

     1. To draw the attention of the courts to the need to proceed from the provision of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) that the judiciary in the Republic is a branch of government that interacts with other branches of government of the Republic: legislative and executive using a system of checks and balances.

     The footnote. Paragraph 1 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 31.03.2017 No. 2 (effective from the date of the first official publication).      2. Excluded by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12/22/2022 No. 10 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

     3. A judge in the administration of justice must be independent, obey only the Constitution and the law, maintain objectivity and impartiality, ensure the implementation of the principle of competition and equality of the parties.

     A judge is not obliged to give any explanations or express his opinion on the merits of the court cases considered or pending before him.

     In accordance with the second part of Article 16 of the CPC, the judge has the right to express his preliminary legal opinion on the legal grounds related to the factual and (or) legal sides of the administrative case.

     The footnote. Paragraph 3 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/29/2025 No. 2 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

     4. Courts should pay special attention to the independence of judges, take measures to prevent interference in their activities, and prevent attempts to control judges or impose duties on them that are not inherent in their powers.

     Interference in the court's activities should be understood as any form of influence on a judge in order to prevent him from exercising objective and impartial justice in a particular case. Such types of interference may include, in particular, a direct indication or an indirect request from a person to be accepted by a court (judge). decisions in favor of a particular party to the judicial process and other deliberate actions committed in order to prevent them from exercising objective and impartial justice in the case.

     Taking control of a case pending in court by State bodies or their officials should be regarded as interference in judicial activities in order to obstruct the administration of justice.

     Such actions entail criminal liability provided for in parts one and three of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code).

     Organizing and holding meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches, pickets or other public events in courthouses, territories adjacent to courthouses and other public places on issues of administration of justice and in violation of the requirements of the legislation on the procedure for organizing and holding peaceful assemblies in the Republic of Kazakhstan, if this action does not have signs of a criminally punishable act, It is subject to qualification as an offense provided for in Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code).

     The footnote. Paragraph 4, as amended by regulatory rulings of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12/22/2022 No. 10 (effective from the date of the first official publication); dated 05/29/2025 No. 2 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

     4-1. According to the Charter of the Republican Public Association "Union of Judges of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as the Union of Judges), the subject and main purpose of its activities, among others, are to protect the interests of the judicial community, promote the strengthening of the status of judges and their independence.

     In this regard, in accordance with subparagraph 4 of the first part of Article 58 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), the Union of Judges, if contacted by a judge, has the right to represent a judge through authorized persons and file lawsuits in court for the protection of honor and dignity in his interests.

     The footnote. The regulatory resolution was supplemented by paragraph 4-1 in accordance with the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12/22/2022 No. 10 (effective from the date of the first official publication).      5. Excluded by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 22.12.2008 No. 8 (for the procedure of entry into force, see paragraph 2 ).

     6. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 25, 2000 No. 132-II "On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as the Constitutional Law on the Judicial System and the Status of Judges), appeals, applications and complaints of citizens and organizations subject to judicial review may not be considered on the merits or taken under control by any other authorities, officials or other persons.

     Based on this, the courts should disregard written or oral appeals from officials of state and other bodies and organizations, which set out recommendations for resolving a particular case, and, if necessary, raise the issue of bringing these persons to justice.

     Officials of state and other bodies and organizations, in accordance with the above-mentioned requirements of the law, should explain to applicants that complaints against court decisions can only be filed with a higher court and in accordance with the procedure established by law.

     The footnote. Paragraph 6, as amended by regulatory rulings of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12/22/2008 No. 8 (for the procedure of entry into force, see paragraph 2); dated 03/31/2017 No. 2 (effective from the date of the first official publication); dated 12/22/2022 No. 10 (effective from the date of the first official publication).      IZPI's note!      Paragraph 6-1 is provided for in the wording of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/29/2025 No. 2 (effective from 07/01/2025).

     6-1. In accordance with articles 9, 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitutional Law on the Judicial System and the Status of Judges, personal reception of citizens is attributed to the exclusive powers of the chairmen of courts and chairmen of judicial boards, therefore other judges are not entitled to conduct reception of citizens.

     The personal reception of citizens by the chairmen of courts and the chairmen of judicial boards is carried out only on issues related to the organization of legal proceedings in local courts and the Supreme Court. At the same time, issues of the court's compliance with the law and the expected results of the case under consideration, the judicial acts that have taken place and their revision, that is, issues of the administration of justice by the court in specific cases, are not subject to discussion.

     The footnote. The regulatory resolution was supplemented by paragraph 6-1 in accordance with the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12/22/2022 No. 10 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

     7. A sentence, decision, or court order that has entered into legal force is binding on everyone, both with respect to the prescriptions specified in them, as well as the circumstances established by the court and their legal assessment.

     No one has the right to arbitrarily distort a court decision, discredit it, or obstruct its execution. Expressing disagreement with a court decision and appealing it to a higher court must be carried out in accordance with the procedure established by law.

     To clarify that the evasion of citizens, officials of state bodies and organizations from the voluntary execution of a judicial act that has entered into legal force entails liability provided for by law.

     In case of non-execution of a judicial act that has entered into legal force, as well as obstruction of its execution, citizens, government officials and employees are subject to criminal liability under Article 430 of the Criminal Code.

     The footnote. Paragraph 7, as amended by regulatory rulings of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12/30/2011 No. 5 (effective from the date of official publication); dated 12/24/2014 No. 3 (effective from the date of official publication); dated 12/22/2022 No. 10 (effective from the date of the first official publication); dated 05/29/2025 No. 2 (effective effective from the date of the first official publication).

9. Clarify that for showing contempt of court, if it does not contain signs of another special administrative offense or crime, the perpetrators are administratively liable under Article 653 of the Administrative Code, according to which any actions (inaction) indicating clear disregard for the court or the rules established in court are recognized as contempt of court.

     Contempt of court, expressed in insulting a judge and (or) a juror in connection with his official activities, entails criminal liability under the second part of Article 410 of the Criminal Code.

     The footnote. Paragraph 9, as amended by regulatory rulings of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12/22/2008 No. 8 (for the procedure of entry into force, see paragraph 2); dated 12/30/2011 No. 5 (effective from the date of official publication); dated 12/24/2014 No. 3 (effective from the date of official publication); dated 03/31/2017 No. 2 (effective effective from the date of the first official publication); dated 12/22/2022 No. 10 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

     10. When considering a case, including via video link (online), in case of violation of the order or disrespect for the court, the court may, directly at the same court session, by its decision (ruling), impose procedural coercion measures on a person provided for in Chapter 18 of the Administrative Procedural Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Article 188 of the CPC, 346 of the CPC.

     If, during a trial in a criminal or civil case, the fact of contempt of court on the part of a person present in the process is established, the court also has the right, in accordance with part three of Article 684 of the Administrative Code, to bring the guilty person to administrative responsibility provided for in Article 653 of the Administrative Code. Consideration of such a case of an administrative offense is carried out by a court (judge) in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 120 of the CPC or part one of Article 346 of the CPC, respectively.

     The actions of the court (judge) to impose measures of procedural coercion or administrative punishment on the violator directly in the courtroom must be reflected in the minutes of the court session. These actions of the court of appeal and cassation instances are recorded in the minutes of the court session only in cases where such a protocol is kept in accordance with the law.

     The court's decision to impose an administrative penalty under Article 653 of the Administrative Code is additionally formalized in the form of a separate reasoned decision.

     Administrative penalties for acts of contempt of court that are committed outside the court session are generally imposed in accordance with the norms of the Administrative Code by the court specified in the first part of Article 684 of the Administrative Code.

     The footnote. Paragraph 10 is amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12/22/2022 No. 10 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

     11. A judge may be disciplined only on the grounds provided for in article 39 of the Constitutional Law on the Judicial System and the Status of Judges, namely:

     1) for gross violation of the law when considering court cases and materials;

     2) for committing a defamatory offense contrary to judicial ethics.

     Along with these grounds, another reason for bringing to disciplinary responsibility the Chairman of the court (chairman of the judicial board) is the improper performance of official duties provided for by the Constitutional Law.

     This list of grounds is exhaustive and is not subject to extensive interpretation.

     According to subparagraph 1) of paragraph 1 of article 39 of the Constitutional Law on the Judicial System and the Status of Judges, a gross violation of the rule of law is an obvious and significant violation of the law committed by a judge as a result of his bad faith or negligence.

     The fact of a gross violation of the law is established by a higher court, which has annulled or amended the judicial act on this basis, and is indicated in the submission on the issue of bringing a judge to disciplinary responsibility for a gross violation of the law, signed by the collegial composition of judges who reviewed the case.

     Taking into account the above-mentioned rule, a submission on the issue of bringing a judge to disciplinary responsibility for a gross violation of the rule of law must comply with the following requirements:

     The violations that served as the basis for the cancellation or amendment of a judicial act and the violations of legality reflected in the submission must be identical.;

     The submission should be motivated by conclusions about the gross violation of the law.;

     The submission must be made on the same day as the judicial act that cancelled or amended the judicial act.;

     The submission is submitted to the Judicial Jury.

     In all cases, the dismissal of a judge from office must be carried out publicly, according to the procedure established by law and only on the grounds provided for by law.

     The cancellation or modification of a judicial act related to the assessment of evidence is not a gross violation of the law.

     The footnote. Paragraph 11 is amended by the regulatory decree of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 05/29/2025 No. 2 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

     12. Courts should take into account that the bodies of the judicial community, such as the Union of Judges of the Republic of Kazakhstan and its local bodies, carry out their activities in strict compliance with the principle of independence and non-interference in the activities of the courts in the administration of justice.

     At the same time, judges have the right to apply to the Union of Judges of the Republic of Kazakhstan regarding the work of courts and the status of judges, determining the position of the judicial community in solving important state-legal problems, taking measures to protect their rights, honor and dignity, and other issues.

     Every judge should be aware that he is the bearer of judicial power, be faithful to the judicial oath, cherish judicial honor, be incorruptible and independent, and build his behavior in the service and in his personal life in strict accordance with the Code of Judicial Ethics.

     Every judge, through all his activities, is obliged to ensure the rule of law, the triumph of law and justice, to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, the constitutional order, state and public interests, to be a guarantor of legality, democracy and to resist arbitrariness.

     According to article 4 of the Constitution, this normative resolution is included in the current law, is generally binding and comes into force from the date of its official publication.

President    

Republic of Kazakhstan     

    © 2012. RSE na PHB "Institute of Legislation and Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan" of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan  

     Constitution Law Code Standard Decree Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases