On the assignment of the obligation to include in the training plan for all training programs
No.6001-22-00-6ap/1348 dated 02.02.2023
Plaintiff: K.T.
Respondent: Aviation Administration of Kazakhstan JSC, Chairman of the Civil Aviation Committee of the Ministry of Industry and Infrastructural Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan L.T., Director of Aviation Administration of Kazakhstan JSC G.P., Deputy General Director of JSC
"Aviation Administration of Kazakhstan" O.L.
The subject of the dispute: on the assignment of the obligation to include in the training plan for 2022 for all training programs, allocate funds and send them to aviation training centers during 2022; on the assignment of the obligation to provide a response on the merits of the appeal dated December 24, 2021; on the assignment of the obligation to make a positive decision on issues of retraining, advanced training; on the assignment of the obligation to make a final decision on behalf of
December 24, 2020; on the assignment of the obligation to provide an answer to the question: "Is it possible to independently search for courses with the submission of an application for management training"
Review of the plaintiff's cassation complaint PLOT:
K.T., filed a lawsuit, asks: to oblige to include in the training plan for 2022 for all training programs, to allocate funds and send them to aviation training centers during 2022; to oblige to give an answer on the merits of the appeal dated December 24, 2021 to the questions raised in it; to oblige to make a positive decision on issues of retraining and advanced training; oblige to make a final decision on the instructions dated December 24, 2020; oblige to answer the question: "Is it possible for the plaintiff to independently search for courses with the submission of an application for management training?".
Judicial acts:
1st instance: the claim is returned
Appeal: the definition remains unchanged.
Cassation: judicial acts are cancelled, the case is sent for new consideration.
Conclusions:
The courts of the first and appellate instances, referring to subparagraph 11) of the second part of Article 138 of the CPC, concluded that the plaintiff's claims were not subject to consideration in administrative proceedings.
By virtue of the requirements of the first part of Article 7 of the CPC, an administrative body or official carries out administrative procedures within its competence and in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, this Code and other regulatory legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The local courts, having failed to find out whether all the plaintiff's claims are not subject to consideration in administrative proceedings, came to the erroneous conclusion that the claim should be returned in full in accordance with subparagraph 11) of part two of Article 138 of the CPC.
According to the first part of Article 8 of the CPC, when considering an administrative case, an administrative body, an official and a court are obliged, while maintaining objectivity and impartiality, to provide each of the participants in the administrative case with an equal opportunity and conditions for exercising their rights to a comprehensive and complete investigation of the circumstances of the administrative case.
The Board considered erroneous the conclusions of the local courts that the plaintiff's claims arose from the employment relationship between K.T. and JSC.
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
