Payment for services is made exclusively to the company's account. For your convenience, we have launched Kaspi RED 😎

Home / Publications / Recovery of State Duty in Administrative Claims

Recovery of State Duty in Administrative Claims

АMANAT партиясы және Заң және Құқық адвокаттық кеңсесінің серіктестігі аясында елге тегін заң көмегі көрсетілді

Recovery of State Duty in Administrative Claims

Plaintiffs in claims challenging the actions (inaction) of bailiffs are exempt from paying state duty when filing a claim with the court in accordance with subparagraph 15) of Article 616 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Taxes and Other Mandatory Payments to the Budget”.

According to Part 1 of Article 122 of the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code (APPC), issues concerning the allocation of legal costs are considered under the rules of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 117 of the CPC, the state duty from which the plaintiff was exempt, as well as litigation expenses related to the proceedings, shall be recovered from the defendant who is not exempt from payment of court expenses, in favor of the state, either in full or proportionally to the satisfied part of the claim.

If the claim is satisfied, the state duty shall be recovered from the bailiff to the local budget proportionally to the satisfied part of the claim.

The rate of state duty is calculated in accordance with subparagraph 8) of paragraph 1 of Article 610 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Taxes and Other Mandatory Payments to the Budget” (0.5 MCI).

According to paragraph 3 of Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, judicial acts that have entered into legal force are binding on all state bodies, local self-government bodies, legal entities, officials, and citizens, and are subject to execution throughout the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The purpose of enforcement proceedings is to ensure the actual restoration of violated or disputed rights or legally protected interests.

Challenging the actions (inaction) of a bailiff constitutes a form of judicial control in enforcement proceedings, the purpose of which is to protect the rights and interests of the parties to enforcement proceedings.

The main regulatory legal acts governing issues of enforcement proceedings are:

  • Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
  • APPC;
  • Civil Code (CC);
  • CPC;
  • Law on Enforcement Proceedings;
  • Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Valuation Activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan”;
  • Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 1 dated March 31, 2017 “On the Application by Courts of Certain Provisions of Legislation on Enforcement Proceedings”;
  • Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 12 dated December 19, 2003 “On Liability for Non-Execution of Judicial Acts”;
  • Rules approved by Order No. 100 of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated February 20, 2015;
  • Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 437 dated May 4, 2014 “On Approval of the Amounts of Remuneration for the Activities of Private Bailiffs”.

Abbreviations Used:

  • APPC – Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
  • CPC – Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
  • CC – Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
  • Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Bailiffs” – Law on Enforcement Proceedings;
  • RR SC – Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court;
  • Rules – Rules for the Sale of Seized Property, including through electronic auction bidding;
  • AIAS – Automated Information and Analytical System of Judicial Authorities of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Torelik”;
  • Judicial Panel for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
  • Judicial Panel or Panel – Judicial Panel for Administrative Cases;
  • Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court (SIAC);
  • DoJ – Department(s) of Justice;
  • SBI – State Bailiff(s);
  • PBI – Private Bailiff(s).

 

 

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 

Article 666. State duty rates for issuing visas of the Republic of Kazakhstan, processing documents for leaving the Republic of Kazakhstan for permanent residence, issuing and approving invitations for foreigners and stateless persons to enter the Republic of Kazakhstan, acquiring citizenship of the Republic of Kazakhstan, restoring citizenship of the Republic of Kazakhstan or renouncing citizenship of the Republic of Kazakhstan, issuing permanent residence permits in the Republic of Kazakhstan The Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Article 666. State duty rates for issuing visas of the Republic of Kazakhstan, processing documents for leaving the Republic of Kazakhstan for permanent residence, issuing and...

Read completely »

Article 670. Exemption from payment of state duty upon approval of invitations of receiving persons for the issuance of visas of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as upon issuance, restoration or extension of visas of the Republic of Kazakhstan of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Article 670. Exemption from payment of state duty upon approval of invitations of receiving persons for the issuance of visas of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as upon is...

Read completely »

The lawyer for the recovery of the amount of damage caused by an employee in the performance of work duties and the costs of paying the state fee by the Court of First instance incorrectly determined the range of circumstances relevant to the case, and made conclusions that do not correspond to the circumstances established in the case.

The lawyer for the recovery of the amount of damage caused by an employee in the performance of work duties and the costs of paying the state fee by the Court of First instanc...

Read completely »