Online free legal advice on civil criminal Administration cases by phone

A court decision is legal only when honesty follows from the general origins and essence of civil law from the requirements of reasonableness and fairness.

Plaintiff A. the defendants filed a lawsuit against Alka LLC (hereinafter referred to as LLP), A. to recognize the involvement of the accident in the institution and oblige to fill out the Act H – 1, collect moral damage in the amount of 15,000,000 tenge. By the decision of the court No. 2 of Aktau city of Mangistau region dated October 03, 2012, the statement of claim was dismissed. The Appellate Judicial Board of the Mangistau regional court for civil and administrative cases left the court's decision unchanged. The Cassation judicial collegium of the regional court left the decision of the Appellate Judicial collegium unchanged. B.in the application of the Supreme Court to the supervisory judicial board, it was indicated that the courts violated the norms of procedural and substantive law and asked to cancel the disputed judicial acts.

Online free legal advice on civil criminal Administration cases by phone

At the same time, the courts consider that they have grossly violated their rights, making unfair, illegal and unjustified decisions. In an additional application, B. considers that the decisions of the court being challenged do not meet the requirements. The defendant, in his opinion against LLC, requested to leave the decision of the court of First Instance and the decisions of the appellate and Cassation judicial boards unchanged, and the appeal was dismissed. In accordance with Part 3 of Article 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the code of criminal procedure), a significant violation by the court of the norms of material or procedural law is the basis for reviewing decisions, resolutions and rulings that have entered into legal force in the order of supervision. The supervisory judicial board heard the arguments of the parties, the conclusion of the prosecutor, studied the case documents and concluded that the application is satisfied on the following grounds, the disputed judicial acts are violated, and the civil case is subject to re-consideration by the appeal judicial board for civil and administrative cases of the Mangistau regional court. In accordance with Article 218 of the code of criminal procedure and paragraph 5 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 11, 2003 No. 5 "on a court decision", the court decision must be legitimate and justified.

A decision is legal only when it is made in compliance with the norms of procedural law and in full compliance with the norms of material law subject to application to this legal relationship, or when it applies the necessary foundations of the law governing a similar relationship, or comes from the general origins and essence of civil law, the requirements of honesty, reasonableness and Justice. Such a decision is considered justified if the facts relevant to the case are supported by admissible and true evidence of this fact, produced at the court session in accordance with the requirements of the law, or if they correspond to generally known circumstances that do not require proof, or if the accumulated evidence in the case is sufficient to resolve the dispute. However, the controversial acts of the Court No. 2 of Aktau City of Mangistau region, judicial boards of Mangistau regional court do not meet the above requirements of the law. According to the case documents, the plaintiff's son, the late B. On May 25, 2012, he died in the village of Atameken, Mangystau region, as a result of an electric shock on a pole belonging to the horticultural partnership "synthesis". In the horticultural partnership "Sintez" under B. LLP, he performed electro-repair work under a contract agreement.

The above events were recognized and not disputed by the parties. In connection with this tragedy, a special commission was established by the order of the Department of Control and social protection of Mangystau region dated June 05, 2012. During the audit, documents confirming B.'S work in LLC were not identified. In court, witnesses, relatives of the deceased A., N. said that he worked in LLC. The court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the requirement of B. to recognize the tragedy as related to the institution and oblige to fill out act H-1, to recover moral damage, B. "I don't know," he said.  In addition, the witnesses, being relatives of the deceased, did not take their explanations as evidence in the case. The supervisory judicial board considers that the court of first instance, the judicial boards of the regional court, without establishing the circumstances important for the case, without giving a clear legal assessment of the evidence on the conclusion of the disputed transaction, allowed the adoption of unreasonable judicial acts.  According to the case documents, according to paragraph 12 of the medical certificate of death No. 172 dated May 26, 2012, the deceased served as an electrician in B. LLP.  According to the commentary of the witness D., S., who serves as the director of the LLC, came to the scene of the incident and taught the Koran to the deceased. According to the letter of the Department of Control and social protection of Mangystau region, explanations were received from the heads of LLP D., S., A., T. and K. In their comments, they indicated that B. did not serve in the LLC, was not instructed to go to the head of the column and did not see how the incident happened. However, later the above-mentioned witnesses changed their explanations, stating that B. served in the LLC, had a tragic accident during the execution of the task to get to the head of the column.

These circumstances were ignored by the courts that considered the case. In addition, the plaintiff B. presented to the court as evidence a notarized certificate of verification of the degree of education of B., issued by LLP, and a demonstration of R., who saw the deceased working in May 2012 on Shuak street, Atameken village, in special work clothes.  Information about how the certificate of verification of the said degree of Education appeared and who issued it was not established in court. In such a context of the case, controversial judicial acts adopted in the case cannot be recognized as legitimate and justified. Therefore, the supervisory judicial board considers it appropriate to cancel the judicial acts and send the civil case to the appeal judicial board for civil and administrative cases of the Mangistau regional court for a complete, objective study of the arguments and circumstances of the case presented by the plaintiff in the application, to eliminate the shortcomings of the judicial investigation and correctly determine the range of significant circumstances. 

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