Recovery from the Debtor of a Penalty Payable to the State for Each Day of Delay in the Enforcement of a Judicial Act
On 18 November 2025, the Nauryzbay District Court of Almaty, composed of Presiding Judge A.O. Ustenova, with Z. Tokbulatova acting as the court hearing secretary, with the participation of the parties, having considered in an open court hearing case No. 7585-25-00-2м/8804 upon the motion of A. Bakbergen, a court enforcement officer of the Enforcement District of Almaty, for recovery from the debtor of a penalty payable to the State for each day of delay, established as follows:
The court enforcement officer applied to the court with the above-mentioned motion, stating that, pursuant to Enforcement Document No. 7585-24-00-2/2435-1 dated 3 March 2025, the debtor was required to reclaim a land plot measuring 0.0030 hectares that had been unlawfully occupied from among lands owned by the State and located at: Apartment 2, Building 79, M T Street, Karagaily Microdistrict, Nauryzbay District, Almaty.
OAK was also required to bring the boundaries of the land plot located at: Apartment 2, Building 79, M T Street, Karagaily Microdistrict, Nauryzbay District, Almaty, into compliance with the identification document for the land plot, cadastral number 20-322-029-056, by demolishing the fence and permanent structures at the respondent's expense.
On 22 September 2025, pursuant to Article 104 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Court Enforcement Officers,” the debtor was sent a notice requiring the debtor to comply with the requirements of the judicial act by 30 September 2025.
However, the debtor has not complied with the requirements of the judicial act to date.
As of the present date, the delay in complying with the court enforcement officer's requirement, commencing on 30 September 2025, amounts to 72 days.
Accordingly, as a result of the delay in enforcement of the judicial act, a penalty in the amount of KZT 273,208 is subject to recovery in favor of the State.
At the court hearing, the court enforcement officer supported his motion and requested that it be granted due to the debtor's outstanding obligation.
Having heard the parties and examined the motion and the materials of the enforcement proceedings, the court considered it necessary to grant the motion of the private court enforcement officer on the following grounds.
Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 104 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Court Enforcement Officers,” where a debtor fails to comply with the requirements of a court enforcement officer within the prescribed period, the court enforcement officer shall apply to the court for recovery from the debtor of a penalty payable to the State in the amount of two monthly calculation indices from individuals and ten monthly calculation indices from legal entities for each day of delay.
The maximum amount of the penalty recoverable from individuals may not exceed 360 monthly calculation indices, and from legal entities — 900 monthly calculation indices.
In these circumstances, the court finds the motion of the private court enforcement officer for recovery from the debtor of a penalty payable to the State in the amount of two monthly calculation indices from an individual for each day of delay to be justified and subject to satisfaction.
Pursuant to Articles 249 and 268 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the court
RULED:
The motion of A. Bakbergen, a court enforcement officer of the Enforcement District of Almaty, for recovery from the debtor of a penalty payable to the State for each day of delay shall be granted.
To recover from [name], IIN ...., a penalty payable to the State in the amount of KZT 273,208 (two hundred seventy-three thousand two hundred eight tenge) for 72 days of delay in complying with the requirements of Enforcement Document No. 7585-24-00-2/2435-1 dated 3 March 2025.
A private complaint may be filed against this ruling, and a prosecutor may submit a motion, within ten working days to the Almaty City Court through the Nauryzbay District Court of Almaty.
Disagreeing with the court ruling and considering it unlawful and unfounded, OAK filed a private complaint with the appellate court.
Thus, OAK did not receive any requirement from the court enforcement officer and, accordingly, was unaware that she was required to comply with the court enforcement officer's demand.
Furthermore, I did not participate in any court hearing held by the Nauryzbay District Court of Almaty on 18 November 2025. Accordingly, I was deprived of the opportunity to present arguments in defence of my rights and legitimate interests.
Moreover, the court determined the period of delay in complying with the court enforcement officer's requirement to be 72 days. This does not correspond to the basic rules of mathematical calculation. If all the days are counted, the calculation is as follows: 30 September 2025 + October 2025 + 18 November 2025 (1 day + 31 days + 18 days) = 50 days. It cannot, under any circumstances, amount to 72 days.
Furthermore, pursuant to Article 104 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Court Enforcement Officers”:
“2. Where a debtor fails to comply with the requirements of a court enforcement officer within the prescribed period, the court enforcement officer shall apply to the court for recovery from the debtor of a penalty payable to the State in the amount of two monthly calculation indices from individuals and ten monthly calculation indices from legal entities for each day of delay.
The maximum amount of the penalty recoverable from individuals may not exceed 360 monthly calculation indices, and from legal entities — 900 monthly calculation indices.
For small and medium-sized business entities, the amount of the penalty recoverable shall not exceed 600 monthly calculation indices, while for a debtor who, in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan ‘On Housing Relations,’ belongs to socially vulnerable groups of the population, the amount shall not exceed 15 monthly calculation indices.
The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to the enforcement of enforcement documents issued in accordance with the procedure established by administrative proceedings.”
However, if the court enforcement officer's requirement was not complied with by 30 September 2025, why did the court enforcement officer apply to the court only in November 2025, thereby worsening my position?
This clearly constitutes a gross violation by court enforcement officer A. Bakbergen of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Court Enforcement Officers.”
Furthermore, I belong to the category of socially vulnerable groups of the population pursuant to Article 68 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Housing Relations.”
In particular, my family has been a large family since 2020 — at the time the motion was considered, I had five children dependent on me. In addition, our family is a single-parent family, as I am currently raising six children on my own.
My youngest child was born on 2 December 2025.
I believe that the court enforcement officer was required to establish all of these circumstances before filing the motion with the court and to bring these circumstances to the attention of the court when the motion was considered.
Standardize the English legal terminologyClarify the conflicting dates and calculations
Ниже — перевод на английский язык в формальном юридическом стиле с сохранением структуры, процессуальных терминов, дат, номеров дел и ссылок на нормы законодательства.
The enforcement proceedings were initiated on the basis of an enforcement document issued in the course of consideration of a civil case. Therefore, even if I were found to be at fault for failing to comply with the court enforcement officer's requirement, the court was not entitled to impose a penalty exceeding 15 monthly calculation indices, since I belong to a socially vulnerable group of the population.
The amount of the penalty should not have exceeded KZT 58,980 (KZT 3,932, being the monthly calculation index (MCI) for 2025, × 15 = KZT 58,980).
Based on the foregoing, the appellate court was requested to:
- set aside the ruling of the Nauryzbay District Court of Almaty dated 18 November 2025 on recovery from [name], IIN ....., of a penalty payable to the State in the amount of KZT 273,208 (two hundred seventy-three thousand two hundred eight tenge) for 72 days of delay in complying with the requirements of Enforcement Document No. 7585-24-00-2/2435-1 dated 3 March 2025;
- recover from court enforcement officer Arnur Bakbergen the legal expenses incurred for the preparation of the private complaint by an attorney in the amount of KZT 30,000.
An application for restoration of the missed time limit for filing the private complaint was also submitted to the court of first instance.
I was not notified of the court hearing or of the judicial act rendered as a result thereof.
The judicial act was never served on me. Accordingly, I was unable to defend my rights as a participant in the proceedings.
I only learned today from the court enforcement officer that the court had issued a ruling imposing on me a penalty in the amount of KZT 273,208. The time limit for filing a private complaint expired in December 2025.
Pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, time limits established by this Code may be restored by the court if they were missed for reasons recognized by the court as valid.
The court shall restore the missed time limit specified in paragraph two of this Article for appealing judicial acts or for the prosecutor to submit motions or protests where the court has violated the law or where judicial acts have restricted the ability of a participant in the proceedings to defend his or her rights and legitimate interests, including where a copy of the judicial act was not timely sent to the person participating in the case, where the person was unaware of the language of the proceedings and the judicial act was not translated into a language understood by that person, or where succession was improperly formalized, as well as where other circumstances existed that prevented the timely filing of a complaint or the timely submission by the prosecutor of a motion or protest.
Based on the foregoing, the following was requested:
- restore the time limit for me to file a private complaint against the ruling of the Nauryzbay District Court of Almaty dated 18 November 2025.
On 16 February 2026, Judge A.O. Ustenova of the Nauryzbay District Court of Almaty, having considered the application for restoration of the missed procedural time limit for filing a private complaint, issued the following ruling:
IT WAS RULED:
The application for restoration of the time limit for appealing the ruling of the Nauryzbay District Court of Almaty dated 18 November 2025 shall be granted.
The time limit for appealing the ruling of the Nauryzbay District Court of Almaty dated 18 November 2025 shall be restored upon the application of [name].
On 21 April 2026, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Almaty City Court, composed of Presiding Judge K.N. Salimbayeva, with E.E. Zhumakulova acting as secretary of the court hearing and with the participation of court enforcement officer A. Bakbergen, having considered, in an open court hearing using a mobile videoconferencing system, Case No. 7599-26-00-2а/3252 and the materials concerning the motion of Arnur Bakbergen, a court enforcement officer of the “Territorial Department for Enforcement of Non-Property Claims” Branch of the Department of Justice of Almaty, for recovery from the debtor of a penalty payable to the State for each day of delay, which had been received upon the debtor's private complaint against the ruling of the Nauryzbay District Court of Almaty dated 18 November 2025,
guided by Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Judicial Collegium
RULED:
The ruling of the Nauryzbay District Court of Almaty dated 18 November 2025 shall be set aside.
The motion of Arnur Bakbergen, a court enforcement officer of the “Territorial Department for Enforcement of Non-Property Claims” Branch of the Department of Justice of Almaty, for recovery from the debtor of a penalty payable to the State for each day of delay shall be remitted to the court of first instance for a new consideration.
The debtor's private complaint shall be granted.
The debtor's request for reimbursement of legal costs shall be denied.
This ruling shall enter into force from the date of its pronouncement and shall not be subject to appeal or protest.
On 21 May 2026, the Nauryzbay District Court of Almaty, composed of Presiding Judge A.O. Ustenova, with Z. Tokbulatova acting as secretary of the court hearing, having considered in an open court hearing Case No. 7585-26-00-2м/3884 and the motion of A. Bakbergen, a court enforcement officer of the Enforcement District of Almaty, for recovery from the debtor of a penalty payable to the State for each day of delay,
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where a motion does not comply with the applicable requirements, as well as where a court enforcement officer submits an application to withdraw the motion, the court shall return the motion together with the documents attached thereto.
Based on the foregoing and guided by Article 268 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the court
RULED:
The motion of A. Bakbergen, a court enforcement officer of the Enforcement District of Almaty, for recovery from the debtor of a penalty payable to the State for each day of delay shall be left without consideration and returned together with the documents attached thereto.
Clarify the contradictory procedural wordingReplace the inaccurate MCI sentence
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
