PRIVATE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE RULING OF THE BOSTANDYK DISTRICT COURT OF ALMATY
To the Judicial Panel for Civil Casesof the Almaty City Court
From the Defendant: SED
IIN: ….
Representative under Power of Attorney:
Law Firm “Zakon i Pravo”BIN 201240021767Office 304, 79 Abylai Khan Avenue, Almaty
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+7 708 971 78 58; +7 727 971 78 58.
PRIVATE COMPLAINT
against the ruling of the Bostandyk District Court of Almaty dated September 9, 2026
Civil case No. 7514-26-00-2/25699 is pending before the Bostandyk District Court of Almaty based on the claim filed by LAS against IE “BH”, represented by YVM, Sue Yu D., and Su E.u D., for recovery of a monetary amount and a penalty.
On September 9, 2026, the Bostandyk District Court of Almaty issued a ruling on the application of interim measures to secure the claim, pursuant to which an attachment was imposed on movable and immovable property, as well as funds held in bank accounts with second-tier banks, belonging, inter alia, to SED, within the amount of the claims of KZT 54,291,200.
SED disagrees with the said ruling and considers the interim measures imposed against him to be unfounded and subject to cancellation.
Pursuant to Article 155 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (the “CPC”), interim measures to secure a claim are permitted where failure to take such measures may make the enforcement of a court judgment difficult or impossible.
According to Paragraph 9 of Regulatory Resolution No. 2 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 12, 2009, “On Taking Interim Measures in Civil Cases,” when considering an application for interim measures, the court is required to assess the applicant’s arguments as to the existence or absence of the grounds for taking interim measures provided for by Article 155 of the CPC.
For these purposes, difficulty or impossibility of enforcing a judicial act means possible actions by the defendant aimed at concealing or disposing of all or part of his property, preparing to leave the Republic of Kazakhstan, and other similar actions.
However, the contested ruling does not contain any specific circumstances indicating that SED is taking or intends to take any actions to conceal or dispose of his property, withdraw funds, or otherwise evade enforcement of a future judicial act.
Moreover, the court justified the need to take interim measures in fact solely by reference to the amount of the claims, stating: “Taking into account the amount of the claim, the court considers it appropriate to grant the application for interim measures.”
The mere significant amount of the claims does not, in itself, establish the existence of a real threat that enforcement of a future judicial judgment will be difficult or impossible, and does not relieve the Plaintiff of the obligation to substantiate the existence of the grounds for interim measures provided for by Article 155 of the CPC.
The ruling also does not indicate what specific evidence was submitted by the Plaintiff in support of the alleged risk of non-enforcement of a future court judgment specifically by SED. The court did not establish any facts of concealment or disposal of property, withdrawal of funds, or any other actions by SED aimed at creating obstacles to the enforcement of a possible judicial act.
Accordingly, the interim measures against SED were imposed based on an assumption that the judicial act might not be enforced, without establishing specific circumstances demonstrating the existence of a real risk of non-enforcement.
Furthermore, the court failed to properly assess the proportionality of the interim measure applied against SED. The simultaneous attachment of movable and immovable property, as well as funds held in bank accounts, substantially restricts his property rights, whereas the necessity of applying such broad interim measures specifically against SED was not separately substantiated in the court’s ruling.
Thus, insofar as the contested ruling concerns the application of interim measures against SED, it does not contain sufficient reasoning establishing the existence of the grounds for securing the claim provided for by Article 155 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Pursuant to Article 161 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a private complaint may be filed with the appellate court against rulings concerning interim measures to secure a claim.
Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Article 161 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
I HEREBY REQUEST THE COURT TO:
- Set aside the ruling of the Bostandyk District Court of Almaty dated September 9, 2026, issued in civil case No. 7514-26-00-2/25699.
Respectfully,
Representative under Power of Attorney:Kenesbek I.M.
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
