On the practice of reviewing certain corruption crimes

Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 27, 2015 No. 8.

     The Republic of Kazakhstan has ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption (Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 4, 2008 No. 31-IV) and, based on the norms of international law, has expressed its intention to develop and apply effective legal measures aimed at preventing and combating corruption.

     The United Nations Convention against Corruption, adopted on October 31, 2003 (New York), reflects international approaches (standards) that characterize activities in the field of preventing and combating corruption. The norms contained in it are predetermined by the problems and threats posed by corruption, the negative impact of corruption on the functioning of all public and legal institutions and relations. They are aimed at ensuring the sustainable development of the state, its political, economic and social systems, and the interests of national security.

     The legal basis for combating corruption in the Republic of Kazakhstan is the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code), the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), and the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 18, 2015 No. 410–V SAM "On Combating Corruption" (hereinafter referred to as – The Law on Combating Corruption), Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 26, 2014 No. 986 "On the Anti-Corruption Strategy of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2015-2025" and other regulatory legal acts providing for the main directions and specific measures to combat and combat corruption.

    For the purposes of uniform and correct application in judicial practice of certain norms of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on corruption crimes, the plenary session of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

    Decides:

When determining which crimes are classified as corruption, courts should be guided by paragraph 29) of Article 3 of the Criminal Code.

The subjects of corruption crimes are the persons specified in paragraphs 16), 19), 26), 27) and 28) Articles 3 of the Criminal Code, and officials of a foreign state or international organization.

    The subjects of these crimes should also be recognized as those persons who, although they did not have the authority to perform appropriate actions in the interests of the bribe giver, but by virtue of their official position could take measures to commit these actions by other persons.

    Other individuals who were complicit in the commission of corruption crimes or unlawfully provided them with property benefits and advantages for the purpose of bribing the above-mentioned persons, or contributed to this, are responsible for corruption crimes.

Officials of a foreign state or international organization specified in Articles 366, 367 of the Criminal Code include persons recognized as such by international treaties of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the field of combating corruption.

    An official of a foreign State is any appointed or elected person who holds any position in the legislative, executive, administrative or judicial body of a foreign state, and any person who performs any public function for a foreign state, including for a public agency or enterprise.

    An official of an international organization is an international civil servant or any person authorized by such organization to act on its behalf.

In order to correctly resolve the issue of whether an act belongs to corruption crimes, and the persons who committed it belong to the subjects of these crimes, the bodies conducting the criminal process must be guided by legislative and other regulatory legal acts, including official regulations and instructions defining the scope and content of official powers, as well as the official status of the person being prosecuted. responsibility.

     When determining the status of a subject of a corruption offense, namely, whether he is a person authorized to perform public functions, or a person equivalent to him, an official, or holding a responsible public position, it is necessary to proceed from the norms of the Criminal Code specified in paragraph 2 of this regulatory resolution.

     To establish whether a person has managerial, organizational, administrative, or economic functions or the status of a representative of authority, one should proceed from the contents of paragraphs 5), 9), 37) of Article 3 of the Criminal Code.

    It is also necessary to clarify issues related to the use of the person being prosecuted, his status, official powers and related opportunities in the commission of a crime. The actions of an official included in his official powers should be understood as those actions that he has the right and (or) is obliged to perform within the limits of his official competence.

    The above information about the person who committed the crime must be indicated in the procedural documents of the pre-trial proceedings and judicial acts when determining the qualification of his actions.

    The footnote. Paragraph 4 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11.12.2020 No. 6 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

Obtaining property benefits and advantages should be understood as the acceptance by a person belonging to the subject of a crime, not only for himself, but also for other persons or organizations, of all kinds of services provided free of charge, payable, or illegal use of benefits, construction, repair work, provision of sanatorium or tourist vouchers, travel tickets, loans or credits for preferential terms , etc.

When considering cases of bribery, it is necessary to clarify the range of actions for which a bribe was received in the interests of the bribe giver. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that responsibility for bribery occurs regardless of the time when the person received the bribe – before or after the commission of actions or omissions, as well as regardless of whether the bribe was pre-determined, whether any actions were performed in the interests of the bribe giver.

    The actions of the perpetrators should also be recognized as giving or receiving a bribe in cases where the conditions for receiving valuables, services, property rights or benefits are not specifically specified, but the participants in the crime are aware that the bribe is being given in order to satisfy the interests of the payer.

Receiving money or other valuables from subordinates or other persons subject to his official powers for patronage or connivance in the service, for favorable resolution of issues within his competence, including possible ones in the future, should be regarded as receiving a bribe.

    General patronage in the service may manifest itself, in particular, in the unjustified appointment of a subordinate, including in violation of the established procedure, to a higher position, in his inclusion in the lists of persons submitted for incentive payments, awards, etc.

    Connivance in the service includes the consent of an official of the supervisory authority not to apply the measures of responsibility within his authority in case of detection of a violation committed by a bribe giver, etc.

The subject of a bribe may be money, securities, tangible assets, the right to property, as well as the illegal provision of property-related services, including exemption from property obligations.

Illegal actions (inaction) for which a person has received a bribe (part two of Article 366 of the Criminal Code) should be understood as actions (inaction) committed by him using official authority, however, in the absence of legally prescribed grounds or conditions for their execution (falsification of evidence in a criminal case, entry into documents of information that does not correspond to reality and so on).

In order to qualify the actions of a person being held criminally liable as receiving, giving, or mediating bribery in accordance with part three of Article 366, part three of Article 367, and part two of Article 368 of the Criminal Code, it is necessary to establish the presence of one or more qualifying signs of a crime provided for in paragraphs of these articles and attribute them to all accomplices of the crime, if these circumstances were covered by their intentionally.

    At the same time, when qualifying the actions of accomplices in a crime, circumstances that relate to one and do not characterize the personality of other accomplices in a crime should not be taken into account.

Extortion means that a person demands a bribe under threat of committing actions that may harm the legitimate interests of the payer or persons represented by him, or intentionally creates conditions under which he is forced to pay a bribe in order to prevent harmful consequences for law enforcement interests.

     According to paragraph 1) of the third part of Article 366 of the Criminal Code (receiving a bribe by extortion), the actions of the perpetrator should be qualified regardless of whether he had the opportunity to carry out the specified threat, if the person who handed over the bribe had reason to really fear the implementation of this threat. It is also necessary to qualify receiving a bribe in the case when extortion with the consent or at the direction of the subject of the crime was carried out by another person who is not the recipient of the bribe.

A bribe should be considered received by a group of persons by prior agreement if two or more entities who had previously agreed to jointly commit the crime participated in receiving the bribe. In this case, the crime is considered completed from the moment of acceptance of the bribe or part of it by at least one of the subjects of receiving the bribe, regardless of whether the bribe giver was aware that several subjects of receiving the bribe were involved in the crime, and regardless of whether the person(s) had a real opportunity to use or dispose of the subject of the bribe at their discretion.

    When a bribe is received by a group of persons by prior agreement, its amount is determined by the total value of the valuables and services received by all the accomplices, and when illegally acquired assets are recovered from the state, one should proceed from the amount of money or the amount of property benefit received by each recipient.

     The actions of the instigators should be qualified as the commission of a crime by a group of persons by prior agreement under paragraph 2) of the third part of Article 366 and paragraph 1) of the third part of Article 367 of the Criminal Code if they incite two or more persons to receive or give bribes, since the objective side of these crimes provides for responsibility for giving or receiving bribes by a group of persons by prior agreement. collusion.

A person who has received a bribe without prior agreement with another person, and then transferred to the latter, in the interests of the payer, part of the proceeds, is responsible for the totality of crimes for receiving and giving a bribe.

    Actions of a person related to receiving a bribe in collusion with a person who is not the subject of receiving a bribe cannot be regarded as receiving a bribe by a group of persons by prior agreement.

Repeated receipt, giving of a bribe or mediation in bribery presuppose the commission of the same crime at least two or more times, if the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has not expired.

    Receiving a bribe from several persons, if a separate action is performed in the interests of each payer, should be qualified as receiving a bribe repeatedly.

    Giving or receiving a bribe in several steps for actions (inaction) that ensure the desired result for the payer, as well as giving a bribe to a group of subjects who have committed a crime by prior agreement with each other, or mediation in these circumstances cannot be considered as committed repeatedly. Such actions should be considered as an ongoing crime.

    Mediation in giving a bribe to one subject of receiving a bribe from several bribe givers or mediation in receiving a bribe by several subjects of receiving a bribe from one bribe giver should be considered as repeated if, in the interests of each of the bribe givers, the recipient performs (does not perform) separate actions or each subject of receiving a bribe acts in a certain way in the interests of the bribe giver and the specified circumstances are realized by the intermediary.

When determining the amount of a bribe, the subject of the bribe must receive a monetary assessment, taking into account current prices or tariffs, if necessary, on the basis of an expert opinion. When determining significant, large and especially large amounts of a bribe, one should be guided by the explanations given in paragraphs 2), 3) and 38) of Article 3 of the Criminal Code. If a significant, large, or especially large bribe was received in parts, but these actions represent episodes of one ongoing crime, the act must qualify as receiving a significant, large, or especially large bribe.

A bribe is considered completed from the moment the person accepts the object of the bribe, regardless of whether the bribe was received in whole or in part, whether or not the person performed the action (inaction) in fulfillment of which the bribe was given. Accepting a bribe is understood as a personal physical acquisition of it, as well as transfer in another way on agreed terms (by transferring it to an account, transferring it to a relative, depositing it in a certain place, etc.). At the same time, it does not matter whether the recipient of the bribe has received a real opportunity to use or dispose of the valuables transferred to him at his discretion.

    Receiving a bribe under the control of the criminal prosecution authorities as part of an operational search operation or a secret investigative action is also qualified as a completed crime.

    In cases where the money received by a person in the form of a bribe turned out to be fake or completely or partially imitated in banknotes, his actions should be qualified as an attempt to receive the entire stipulated amount of the bribe.

    If a person voluntarily refuses to receive a proposed bribe, in accordance with article 26 of the Criminal Code, he is not subject to criminal liability, and the actions of the bribe giver should be qualified as an attempt to pay a bribe.

     If the transfer of a bribe did not take place due to circumstances beyond the control of the will of the persons whose actions were directly aimed at transferring or receiving it, that is, when the objective side of giving or receiving a bribe was initiated, then the deed should be qualified as an attempt to give or receive a bribe. Other preparatory actions of the bribe giver or the recipient of the bribe, which do not form the immediate beginning of the objective side of giving or receiving a bribe, may not be recognized as an attempt to give or receive a bribe. Such actions, in accordance with the first part of Article 24 of the Criminal Code, are subject to qualification as preparation for giving or receiving a bribe in cases where these actions were suppressed and the crime (grave or especially grave) was not completed due to circumstances beyond the control of the bribe giver or recipient.

    The footnote. Paragraph 16 is amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11.12.2020 No. 6 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

Heads of government agencies, enterprises, institutions, or organizations who have invited their subordinates to achieve desired actions or omissions by paying bribes to the person specified in paragraphs 16), 19), 26), 27) and 28) of Article 3 of the Criminal Code, an official of a foreign state or an international organization, are responsible as instigators to giving a bribe, and if the offer of giving a bribe was aimed at obtaining advantages and benefits for themselves personally, then as bribe–givers.

    An employee who, in the interests of another person, has agreed to perform conditional actions for a bribe and has transferred a bribe must be held responsible as an accomplice to giving a bribe. If the named person only transfers a bribe, knowing about the nature of the assignment, his actions are subject to qualification as mediation in bribery.

It is necessary to distinguish mediation in bribery from complicity in giving or receiving bribes in the form of complicity.

     In accordance with the first part of Article 368 of the Criminal Code, an intermediary should be recognized as a person who assisted the recipient and the payer in reaching an agreement between them on receiving and giving a bribe or implementing this agreement. The intermediary, as a rule, comes into contact with both the payer and the recipient of the bribe for this purpose, informs them about the intentions and readiness of each to commit a crime and about the conditions of its commission.

    At the same time, assistance in reaching an agreement on a bribe may be expressed in conducting appropriate negotiations between the recipient and the payer, organizing meetings between them, participating in the discussion of the terms of the agreement on giving and receiving a bribe. Facilitating the implementation of a bribe agreement is characterized by the commission of actions aimed at fulfilling the agreement between the payer and the recipient of the bribe on the direct transfer of the subject of the bribe to its intended destination.

     An accomplice, like another accomplice, stands on the side of one of the subjects of bribery. In accordance with part five of Article 28 of the Criminal Code, an accomplice is a person who, by his advice, instructions, providing information, creating conditions for the transfer or receipt of a bribe, or removing obstacles to this, facilitated the commission of a crime, as well as a person who promised in advance to conceal the perpetrators, tools or other means of committing a criminal offense, the traces of this act, thereby ensuring achieving the goals pursued by the payer or recipient of the bribe.

     The organizer, instigator or accomplice who performed the actions specified in part three, four or five of Article 28 of the Criminal Code, respectively, and at the same time performed intermediary functions, are responsible for complicity in giving or receiving a bribe. When qualifying the actions of an accomplice, it is necessary to take into account the direction of his intent, to find out in whose interests, on whose side and on whose initiative - the bribe giver or the bribe recipient - he acted. Depending on the established action of the organizer, instigator or accomplice, they are subject to qualification in accordance with the relevant parts of Articles 366 or 367 of the Criminal Code with reference to Article 28 of the Criminal Code. Additional qualifications in this case are not required under article 368 of the Criminal Code, which provides for liability for mediation in bribery.

 The footnote. Paragraph 18 is amended by the regulatory decree of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11.12.2020 No. 6 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

Mediation in bribery, committed by a person using his official position, including the subject of bribery, involves the use by these persons of the rights and powers granted to them in the service.

    Note from <url>!      The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan has initiated proceedings to verify the constitutionality of paragraph 20.

If a person receives money or other valuables from a bribe giver allegedly for transfer to a person as a bribe and, without intending to do so, appropriates them, what he has done must qualify as fraud. When, in order to seize valuables, this person inclines the bribe giver to give a bribe, then his actions should additionally be qualified as incitement to give a bribe, and the actions of the bribe giver in such cases should be qualified as attempted bribery. It does not matter whether the specific person to whom the bribe was supposed to be given was indicated.

    The acquisition of valuables by fraud is considered completed from the moment when a person has a real opportunity to use or dispose of the valuables transferred to him at his discretion.

    Obtaining funds or other valuables by fraud under the control of criminal prosecution authorities as part of an operational search operation or a secret investigative action using funds allocated by the state budget for these purposes, or other funds not belonging to the victim, should be regarded as attempted fraud.

    The footnote. Paragraph 20 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11.12.2020 No. 6 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

If the person specified in the first part of Article 361 of the Criminal Code used official powers contrary to the interests of the service in order to extract benefits and advantages for himself, other persons or organizations, caused harm to someone by his actions (inaction), and this entailed causing significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the legally protected interests of society. or the state, then the deed cannot be qualified as receiving a bribe (emergency housing, obtaining a preferential loan, etc.). Such actions should be qualified as abuse of official authority.

    The selfish motive of abuse of official authority can be expressed in obtaining benefits and advantages not only of a material, property nature, but also in other personal interests in the form of promotions, the desire to please management, etc.

Bribery differs from commercial bribery by the subject of the crime, therefore, the illegal receipt of money or other valuables by a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization cannot entail responsibility for bribery. Such actions should be qualified under Article 253 of the Criminal Code.

Responsibility for giving and receiving bribes does not exclude simultaneous criminal prosecution for actions related to bribery, but forming independent crimes (abuse of official position, complicity in theft of other people's property, etc.). In such cases, the deed must be classified according to the totality of crimes.

    The transfer of deliberately stolen property by an intermediary should be classified according to the totality of crimes – as mediation in bribery and complicity in theft, if the intermediary knew in advance that the subject of the bribe would be stolen by the bribe giver.

When assessing evidence, courts should keep in mind that the criminal prosecution authorities, if necessary, carry out repeated operational search measures in the same case in order to identify other persons involved in giving, receiving bribes or mediation in bribery, are required to issue a reasoned decision indicating these specific actions.

     In the absence of such a resolution, repeated operational search activities of the criminal prosecution authorities on the basis of article 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan should be considered illegal.

     Provocative and inflammatory actions of the criminal prosecution authorities, consisting in handing over a bribe to a person specified in the first part of Article 366 of the Criminal Code, when consent was obtained as a result of his inducement to receive the subject of a bribe under circumstances indicating that without the intervention of the criminal prosecution authorities, he would not have had the intention to receive a bribe and the crime would not have occurred. if committed, the criminality of the act of the person in respect of whom this activity was carried out is excluded.

Responsibility for provocation of a bribe under the second part of Article 417 of the Criminal Code occurs only in cases when an attempt to transfer the subject of a bribe was carried out for the purpose of artificially forming evidence of a crime or blackmail and the person specified in the first part of Article 366 of the Criminal Code did not knowingly commit acts indicating his consent to accept a bribe.

     Provocation of a bribe is considered a completed crime from the moment of an attempt to transfer property or provide property-related services without the knowledge of the person specified in the first part of Article 366 of the Criminal Code, or despite his refusal to accept the subject of the bribe.

Taking into account that in cases of bribery, technical means can be used to collect evidence (audio, video recording, processing of bribe items with special dyes, etc.), courts need to carefully check the compliance of pre-trial investigation authorities with the norms of the CPC on the detection, consolidation and seizure of evidence and decide on their admissibility.

The body conducting criminal proceedings, in accordance with the notes of Articles 366, 367 of the Criminal Code, should take into account the following:

     it is not a crime because of its insignificance and is prosecuted in a disciplinary or administrative manner. receiving or giving for the first time by a person specified in the first parts of Articles 366, 367 of the Criminal Code, property, the right to property or other property benefits as a gift, in the absence of a prior agreement for previously committed lawful actions (inaction), if the value of the gift does not exceed two monthly calculation indices;

     A person who has given a bribe is exempt from criminal liability if there has been extortion of a bribe by a person specified in the first part of Article 366 of the Criminal Code, or this person voluntarily informed a law enforcement or special state body about giving a bribe.

    The notification (written or oral) of a crime must be recognized as voluntary, regardless of the motives that guided the applicant. At the same time, a report made in connection with the fact that a law enforcement agency or a special state body became aware of a bribe cannot be recognized as voluntary.

     27-1. If a person who is incited to give a bribe voluntarily, including being deceived, transfers money or other valuables as a bribe, then he is recognized as a bribe giver and is criminally liable. Such a person is exempt from criminal liability on the basis of paragraph 2 of the note to Article 367 of the Criminal Code if he voluntarily informed a law enforcement or special state body about giving a bribe. In this case, the case is terminated in accordance with paragraph 12) of the first part of Article 35 of the CPC. In criminal proceedings, such a person acts as a witness.

     If, prior to the transfer of a bribe, a person voluntarily declared the fact of extortion of a bribe or incitement to give a bribe, then criminal prosecution against such a person who transferred a bribe under the control of a law enforcement agency shall be terminated in accordance with paragraph 2) the first part of Article 35 of the CPC for the absence of elements of a criminal offense in his actions. In criminal proceedings, this person acts as a victim.

    All decisions of the criminal prosecution body taken in the case must be formalized by a resolution and attached to the case file.

    The footnote. The regulatory resolution was supplemented by paragraph 27-1 in accordance with the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11.12.2020 No. 6 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

     27-2. A person who has committed a corruption offense for the first time without being part of a criminal group, taking into account the fact that he has confessed, contributed to the disclosure and investigation of a criminal offense, made amends for the damage caused by a criminal offense, as well as information about his identity, may be released from criminal liability in connection with active repentance on the basis of part one of the article 65 CC. The decision on this can be made only by the court.

    The footnote. The regulatory resolution was supplemented by paragraph 27-2 in accordance with the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11.12.2020 No. 6 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

Courts must strictly comply with the provisions of the law on a differentiated approach to sentencing persons found guilty of corruption-related crimes. At the same time, courts should proceed from the nature and degree of public danger of what they have done, preventing the imposition of both excessively mild and excessively harsh criminal penalties, taking into account the clarifications of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 25, 2015 No. 4 "On certain issues of criminal punishment".

     For the commission of corruption crimes, additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to hold a certain position or engage in a certain activity for life is mandatory, regardless of whether the person was engaged in a certain activity or held a certain position at the time of the commission of the crime in the organizations listed in the second part of Article 50 of the Criminal Code.

The footnote. Paragraph 28 as amended by the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11.12.2020 No. 6 (effective from the date of the first official publication).

The seized money and other valuables, which are the subject of a bribe and are recognized as material evidence, are subject to return to the state revenue.

    The subject of a bribe, submitted at the request of the body conducting the criminal process by another person, is subject to return by affiliation.

    If the object of the bribe is not found, then its value as illegally acquired property is recovered by the court to the state's income or transferred by ownership to another person.

    The property obtained as a result of committing corruption crimes and (or) the cost of illegally obtained services are subject to conversion into state revenue. The relevant decision is made by the court considering the criminal case and sets it out in the operative part of the verdict.

    Other claims for the transfer of illegally obtained property to the state income and (or) recovery of the cost of illegally obtained services as a result of corruption crimes, the decision on which was not made in the verdict, are considered in civil proceedings at the claims of the prosecutor, state revenue authorities or other state bodies and officials authorized to do so by the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Civil claims filed during criminal proceedings are subject to resolution in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20 of the CPC. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the harm caused by a crime related to corruption can be not only property, but also moral.

To draw the attention of the courts to the importance of preventive work to eliminate corruption. In this regard, the reasons and conditions established during the consideration of the case that contributed to the commission of crimes related to corruption, which negatively affect the rule of law in the Republic of Kazakhstan, should not be left without proper response.

     When establishing such grounds, the courts, in accordance with article 405 of the CPC, should issue private rulings aimed at eliminating conditions that contributed to the manifestation of corruption.

Invalidate them:

     1) Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 22, 1995 No. 9 "On the practice of courts applying legislation on liability for bribery";

     2) Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 20, 1999 No. 20 "On Amendments and Additions to Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 22, 1995 No. 9 "On the practice of courts applying legislation on liability for bribery";

     3) Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 13, 2001 No. 18 "On the practice of judicial review of criminal cases of corruption-related crimes";

     4) Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 22, 2008 No. 6 "On Amendments and Additions to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 22, 1995 No. 9 "On the practice of courts applying legislation on liability for bribery";

     5) Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 22, 2008 No. 17 "On Amendments and Additions to the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 13, 2001 No. 18 "On the practice of judicial review of criminal cases of crimes related to corruption."

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

Chairman

The Supreme Court

Republic of Kazakhstan

Judge

The Supreme Court

Republic of Kazakhstan,

Secretary of the plenary session

K. MAMIE

© 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