Return of a Claim Due to the Applicant’s Lack of Authority

Home / Cases / Return of a Claim Due to the Applicant’s Lack of Authority

22 June 2026

Return of a Claim Due to the Applicant’s Lack of Authority

Courts return claims pursuant to subparagraph 4) of part 2 of Article 138 of the Administrative Procedure and Process Code (APPC) if the application (claim) is signed by a person who lacks the authority to sign or file it.

However, judicial practice has shown that the circumstances of a case may indicate that the claimant has a legitimate interest, which requires a legal assessment when deciding whether the claim is admissible.

For example, the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court (SIAC) of Astana considered an administrative case brought by the Limited Liability Partnership “Eurasian Center for Business Cooperation ‘Astana’” (hereinafter – the Company) against LLP “Almatyobltyazhstroy 1” (hereinafter – the LLP) and Private Enforcement Officer A.T. Doszhanov. The Company sought recognition as unlawful and annulment of the Resolution on the Distribution of Recovered Monetary Funds dated 27 February 2024, recognition as unlawful of the actions related to the acceptance of Valuation Report No. 02/15-07 dated 15 February 2024, and invalidation of Valuation Report No. 02/15-07 dated 15 February 2024 (Case No. 6001-24-00-6ап/1715).

When considering the Company’s administrative claim, the local courts committed significant violations of procedural law by unjustifiably returning the administrative claim.

The SIAC of Astana held that the claimant lacked authority to sign and file the claim and that the claimant was not a party to the enforcement proceedings and therefore had no right to challenge the resolution on the distribution of funds or the property valuation report. The appellate court agreed with these arguments and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance.

Meanwhile, the judicial panel disagreed with these conclusions, since the right to judicial protection is guaranteed by Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Part 1 of Article 9 of the APPC, according to which everyone has the right to apply to the court for the protection of their violated or disputed rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests.

Indeed, the Company was not a party to the enforcement proceedings. However, the actions of the private enforcement officer in determining the value of a non-residential premises could directly affect the Company’s property interests as a creditor in another enforcement proceeding initiated against the same debtor within the same administrative-territorial unit.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 68 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, the valuation of a debtor’s property may be challenged in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan governing administrative judicial proceedings.

Consequently, the conclusions of the local courts that a valuation report cannot be challenged through administrative proceedings contradict the provisions of the applicable legislation.

It should also be taken into account that the sale of a debtor’s property at an undervalued price may violate the rights not only of the debtor but also of all creditors, including the claimant, despite its position in the fifth priority queue. Such actions may affect the extent to which the claimant’s claims are satisfied in another enforcement proceeding, which indicates the existence of a legitimate interest and the right to judicial protection.

The Administrative Cases Judicial Panel of the Supreme Court noted that the local courts failed to take sufficient measures to comprehensively, fully, and objectively clarify all circumstances relevant to the case and incorrectly applied procedural law, which resulted in violations of the principles and objectives of administrative judicial proceedings.

In light of the above, the Supreme Court’s Administrative Cases Judicial Panel concluded that there were grounds to overturn the rulings of the courts of first instance and appeal and to remit the case for a new hearing before the court of first instance.

Upon reconsideration, the SIAC of Astana examined the Company’s claim on the merits and provided an appropriate legal assessment.

Thus, when determining whether a claimant has the authority to file a claim, all circumstances relevant to the case must be comprehensively, fully, and objectively examined.

Formulation of Claims

When filing administrative claims challenging the actions (or omissions) of enforcement officers, claimants formulate their claims in various ways.

As a rule, disputes within this category are considered through actions for contestation, compulsion, and performance of certain acts (Articles 132–134 of the APPC).

Pursuant to Article 132 of the APPC, where an administrative act imposing a burden violates the claimant’s rights, freedoms, or legitimate interests, the claimant may bring an action challenging the administrative act and seek its annulment in whole or in part.

If a party disagrees with a resolution issued by an enforcement officer, the claim should seek recognition of that resolution as unlawful. It is not necessary to simultaneously file a separate claim seeking recognition of the actions as unlawful.

Under Part 2 of Article 84 of the APPC, an unlawful administrative act may be annulled in whole or in part.

Where a resolution is found unlawful, the court annuls the respective resolution.

Return of a Claim

Part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC provides seventeen grounds for returning an administrative claim.

Cases within this category are most frequently returned on the following grounds:

Subparagraph 6) of Part 2 of Article 138 APPC – the claimant has withdrawn the filed claim;
Subparagraph 9) of Part 2 of Article 138 APPC – the parties have concluded a settlement, mediation agreement, or dispute resolution agreement under a participatory procedure, and such agreement has been approved by the court;
Subparagraph 11) of Part 2 of Article 138 APPC – the case is not subject to consideration under administrative judicial proceedings;
Subparagraph 17) of Part 2 of Article 138 APPC – the case falls outside the jurisdiction of the respective court.

An additional ground for returning a claim is provided by Part 8 of Article 136 of the APPC, according to which missing the statutory time limit for filing a claim without a valid reason, as well as the impossibility of restoring the missed deadline, constitutes grounds for returning the claim.

Courts generally do not encounter difficulties in resolving issues related to the return of claims in this category.

At the same time, implementation of the principle of the court’s active role has significantly increased the number of cases resolved amicably through settlement agreements or withdrawal of claims.

Time Limit for Appealing a Court Decision

Part 4 of Article 168 of the APPC provides that an appeal and a prosecutor’s petition in administrative cases challenging the actions (or omissions) of enforcement officers may be filed within ten working days from the date the decision is issued in its final form. The final version of the decision must be prepared no later than ten working days after its pronouncement.

Amendments to this provision were introduced on 21 November 2024 in implementation of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan’s Resolution No. 33-NP dated 6 October 2023, “On Reviewing the Compliance of the First Paragraph of Part 4 of Article 168 of the APPC with the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan.”

As follows from the Constitutional Court’s Resolution No. 33-NP, the provisions of Part 4 of Article 168 of the APPC derive from Part 2 of the same article, which establishes the general rules for appealing court decisions that have not entered into legal force, with the appeal period being calculated from the date the court decision is issued in its final form.

Accordingly, the ten-working-day period for filing appeals and prosecutors’ petitions in cases challenging the actions (or omissions) of enforcement officers must be calculated from the date the decision is issued (prepared) in its final form. Otherwise, the statutory period for filing an appeal may expire before the final version of the decision is prepared, depriving participants of the opportunity to review the reasoning section and effectively exercise their right to appeal.

The Constitutional Court stated that such regulation may restrict the constitutional rights to judicial protection, qualified legal assistance, and equality before the law and the courts.

The Constitutional Court also noted that the concepts used in the APPC (“date of issuance of the decision,” “date of preparation of the decision in final form,” etc.) lack sufficient legal precision and allow for ambiguous interpretation, thereby creating risks of violations of the rights of participants in the proceedings.

As a result, the Constitutional Court held that the challenged provision complies with the Constitution only insofar as the time limit for filing an appeal or a prosecutor’s appellate petition in the categories of administrative cases specified in Part 4 of Article 168 must be calculated not from the announcement of the operative part of the decision, but from the date the court decision is issued (prepared) in its final form.

Prior to the introduction of the above amendments to Part 4 of Article 168 of the APPC, local courts applied differing interpretations regarding the calculation of the time limit for appealing first-instance court decisions.

The Administrative Cases Judicial Panel of the Supreme Court confirmed the priority of constitutional and legal interpretation of procedural norms and established a uniform practice whereby appeal periods are calculated from the date the decision is prepared in its final form.

This practice is of systemic importance, as it eliminates inconsistencies in judicial practice and ensures that parties have a genuine opportunity to exercise their right to judicial protection within the framework of administrative proceedings.

Evidence and Proof

The procedure for the legal regulation of evidence, factual data inadmissible as evidence, the subject matter of proof and sources of evidence, as well as the collection, examination, evaluation, and use of evidence (proof), and other provisions relating to evidence and proof, is governed by the norms of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), except for the specific features established by the Administrative Procedure and Process Code (APPC) (Article 128 of the APPC).

When challenging the actions of a Private Enforcement Officer (PEO) in court, evidence may consist of various documents and materials confirming violations committed by the PEO. It is necessary to establish specific facts indicating unlawful actions or omissions.

Evidence (the enforcement proceedings file, duly bound and numbered) may include:

Enforcement Documents

The original or a certified copy of the writ of execution or court order on the basis of which the PEO acted.
The PEO’s resolutions being challenged, indicating their date and content.

Documents Confirming Violations

Payment receipts;
Correspondence with the PEO;
Notifications (including reports confirming delivery of SMS notifications);
Witness statements;
Property valuation reports;
Property inventory records;
Inspection reports;
Certificates confirming non-residence;
Photographs;
Video recordings;
Any other materials confirming the violation of the applicant’s rights and legitimate interests.

Complaints Submitted to Justice Authorities or the Chamber of Private Enforcement Officers

If a complaint against the actions of the PEO has been filed, copies of such complaint and responses thereto may also be used as evidence.

Witness Testimony

Witnesses who are able to confirm the circumstances of the case may be summoned to court to provide testimony.

Recovery of State Duty

Pursuant to subparagraph 15) of Article 616 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Taxes and Other Mandatory Payments to the Budget” (Tax Code), claimants filing actions challenging the actions (or omissions) of enforcement officers are exempt from paying state duty when submitting a claim to the court.

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 122 of the APPC, issues relating to the allocation of legal costs are considered under the rules of the CPC.

Under Part 1 of Article 117 of the CPC, state duty from which the claimant was exempt, as well as litigation expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings, shall be recovered from the defendant who is not exempt from court costs, in favor of the state, either in full or proportionally to the satisfied portion of the claim.

Where the claim is upheld, state duty shall be recovered from the enforcement officer in favor of the local budget proportionally to the satisfied portion of the claim.

The rate of state duty is calculated in accordance with subparagraph 8) of paragraph 1 of Article 610 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and amounts to 0.5 Monthly Calculation Indexes (MCI).

Application of Procedural Coercive Measures

If violations of procedural legislation are established during the consideration of a case, procedural coercive measures in the form of monetary penalties may be applied.

Pursuant to Article 127 of the APPC, the court may impose a monetary penalty on a person who abuses procedural rights or fails to perform procedural duties, including cases where evidence is submitted or court instructions are executed in violation of the deadline established by the court without valid reasons, if such conduct resulted in delaying the consideration of the administrative case. A penalty of ten Monthly Calculation Indexes (MCI) may be imposed for each such action or omission.

For failure to comply with a court requirement or request, failure of a participant in the administrative proceedings to appear in court, untimely notification of the court, untimely submission of a response, disobedience to the presiding judge’s orders during a court hearing, violation of court rules, or other actions (or omissions) clearly demonstrating contempt for the court and/or judge, the court may impose a monetary penalty of twenty Monthly Calculation Indexes (MCI).

For failure to comply with a court decision or a court ruling approving a settlement agreement, mediation agreement, or dispute resolution agreement reached through a participatory procedure, the court shall impose a monetary penalty on the defendant in the amount of fifty Monthly Calculation Indexes (MCI), specifying in the same judicial act a compliance period not exceeding one month.

During the analyzed period, courts developed a consistent practice of applying procedural coercive measures in the form of monetary penalties.

In disputes involving challenges to the actions (or omissions) of enforcement officers, monetary penalties were most frequently imposed on defendants for the following reasons:

Failure to submit a response in a timely manner;
Failure to provide enforcement proceeding materials in a timely manner;
Submission of enforcement proceeding materials in an incomplete form;
Failure to appear (or connect remotely) at a court hearing without valid reasons.

Abbreviations Used

APPC – Administrative Procedure and Process Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
CPC – Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
CC – Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
Law on Enforcement Proceedings – Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Enforcement Officers”;
SCSC Resolution – Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
Rules – Rules for the Sale of Seized Property, Including by Electronic Auction;
AIAS – “Törelik” Automated Information and Analytical System of the Judicial Authorities of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
ACJP SC – Administrative Cases Judicial Panel of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
Judicial Panel (Panel) – Administrative Cases Judicial Panel;
SIAC – Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court;
JD – Department(s) of Justice;
SEO – State Enforcement Officer(s);
PEO – Private Enforcement Officer(s);
EP – Enforcement Proceedings.

Main Regulatory Legal Acts Governing Enforcement Proceedings

The principal regulatory legal acts governing enforcement proceedings include:

The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
The Administrative Procedure and Process Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (APPC);
The Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (CC);
The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (CPC);
The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Enforcement Officers”;
The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Valuation Activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan”;
The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mediation”;
The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Marriage (Matrimony) and Family”;
Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 1 dated 31 March 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 19 December 2003 “On Liability for Non-Execution of Judicial Acts”;
Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 2 dated 12 January 2009 “On the Adoption of Interim Measures in Civil Cases”;
Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 5 dated 29 November 2024 “On Court Judgments in Administrative Cases”;
Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 6 dated 29 November 2019 “On the Application of Legislation by Courts in Cases Related to the Recovery of Alimony”;
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 437 dated 4 May 2014 “On Approval of the Fees for the Activities of Private Enforcement Officers” (repealed on 13 July 2023);
Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 372 dated 24 December 2014 “On Approval of the List of Types of Wages and/or Other Income from Which Child Support for Minor Children Is Withheld”;
Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 416 dated 27 June 2023 “On Approval of the Fees for the Activities of Private Enforcement Officers”;
Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 148 dated 28 March 2019 “On Approval of Standard Forms of Resolutions of Private Enforcement Officers.”

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

Return of a Claim Due to Failure to Comply with Pre-Trial Dispute Resolution Procedure

18 April 2026

Return of a Claim Due to Failure to Comply with Pre-Trial Dispute Resolution ProcedureAccording to subparagraph 1) of part 2 of Article 138 of the Administrative Procedural Co...