STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE COURT FOR DECLARING THE EXPULSION ORDER UNLAWFUL
To the Interdistrict Court for Civil Cases of Astana
010000, Astana, 6 Geidar Aliyev Street.
Plaintiff: STҚ
IIN ....
Representative under Power of Attorney:
“Zakon i Pravo” Law Firm
BIN 201240021767.
Republic of Kazakhstan, 050002, Almaty,
Almaly District, 79/71 Abilai Khan Avenue, Office 304.
info@zakonpravo.kz www.zakonpravo.kz
Tel.: +7 708 971 78 58 / 8 727 971 78 58.
Defendant: Non-Profit Joint-Stock Company “Astana Medical University”
BIN ...
Astana, Saryarka District, 49A Beibitshilik Street.
+7 700 ...
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
for declaring the expulsion order unlawful
On 31 March 2022, a standard agreement No. 7.4-21-1602 on the provision of educational services was concluded between STҚ (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and NJSC “Astana Medical University” (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”). Pursuant to the said agreement, the Defendant undertook to provide the Plaintiff with higher education services, organize the educational process and issue the relevant education document upon full completion of the educational program.
On 15 April 2025, by Order No. 489-s/zhс of the Chairman of the Board – Rector of the Defendant, i.e. the University (hereinafter referred to as the “Order”), a fourth-year student of the School of Medicine, STҚarabekkyzy, i.e. the Plaintiff, was expelled from the University.
The said Order was issued on the basis of Minutes No. 6 of the Disciplinary Council dated 10 April 2025.
On 31 March 2025, during the examination in Immunology, the Plaintiff was caught using a cheat sheet.
On 10 April 2025, the Defendant held a meeting of the Disciplinary Council, which was documented in Minutes No. 6. The Disciplinary Council qualified the Plaintiff’s actions as a violation of the requirements of the University’s internal regulatory documents, namely subparagraphs 20) and 24) of paragraph 8 of the University’s Code of Ethics, as well as:
- for committing offenses and crimes related to corruption, including giving or receiving a bribe (giving gifts, providing remuneration in any form, as well as providing intermediary services in giving a bribe);
- for using mobile means of communication, sheets of paper, headphones or other means of communication during current, interim and final assessment, and for violating assessment rules.
Thus, the conclusion of the Disciplinary Council contained findings that the Plaintiff, during the examination, not only used a mobile phone, but also committed a corruption offense, and the Plaintiff was therefore recommended for expulsion from the University.
However, I consider that the said Order was issued unlawfully, without sufficient grounds, and in violation of the rights and legitimate interests of the Plaintiff. The reasons are as follows:
First, the Plaintiff did not give any bribe to the teachers; however, despite the allegation that a corruption offense had been committed, no evidence was provided as to what specific material valuables or monetary funds had been transferred. There was no fact of the Plaintiff transferring money, gifts or other material valuables to the Defendant’s employees.
Second, according to Minutes No. 6 and the memorandum submitted by the Defendant, it was established that the Plaintiff had violated the provisions of the University’s Academic Integrity Code. According to the University’s Academic Integrity Code, the procedure for recording and reviewing cases of academic integrity violations is clearly regulated. In particular, if a violation is detected during an examination or interim assessment, a relevant act must be drawn up and the matter must be considered in accordance with the established procedure. However, no information confirming full compliance with these procedures was provided to the student.
Third, the principle of proportionality must be observed when imposing disciplinary sanctions. According to the practice of the Defendant’s Disciplinary Council for the period from January to April 2025, more than 80 students who had used cheat sheets were admitted to retake the relevant subject during the summer semester and were not expelled. Nevertheless, the most severe sanction – expulsion – was applied to the Plaintiff.
Fourth, paragraph 10 of the University’s Code of Ethics provides for the liability of students. The said paragraph states that students are subject to disciplinary liability and disciplinary sanctions may be imposed on them for failure to perform or improper performance of academic plans and duties provided for by the University Charter, as well as for violation of this Code, the Academic Integrity Code, contractual obligations, and dormitory residence rules.
However, the said provision does not provide for the direct application to a student of the most severe disciplinary sanction in the form of expulsion. This, in turn, indicates that the type of sanction applied by the Defendant exceeded the scope of liability specifically established by the internal regulatory acts and that the decision taken was excessively severe.
Pursuant to Article 43 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Education”, educational organizations are obliged to respect the rights of students and ensure the legality of the educational process.
In addition, the issue of expelling students is regulated by paragraph 41 of the Model Rules for the Activities of Organizations of Higher and (or) Postgraduate Education, approved by Order No. 595 of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 30 October 2018. According to the said paragraph, a student may be expelled only on specifically stated grounds, namely academic failure, violation of the principles of academic integrity, violation of internal regulations, violation of contractual terms, or voluntarily.
Accordingly, the expulsion of the Plaintiff on the ground of “committing a corruption offense” is not provided for by the said paragraph 41, and in the absence of proof of such a serious allegation, the legality of the expulsion Order is questionable.
Pursuant to subparagraph 1) of paragraph 1 of Article 41 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Education”, the Charter of an educational organization, in addition to the requirements provided for by the civil legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, must contain the grounds and procedure for expelling students and pupils.
However, paragraph 117 of the Defendant’s Charter does not contain a specific provision stating that a student must be mandatorily expelled in the event of a violation of the Code of Ethics, namely, the use of a mobile phone during an examination or the existence of suspicion of giving a bribe.
For the purpose of fully, comprehensively and objectively clarifying the above circumstances, a lawyer’s inquiry was sent to the Defendant pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 76 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Advocacy and Legal Assistance”. The said lawyer’s inquiry requested copies of the complete materials of the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the Plaintiff, as well as copies of all evidence relied upon by the Disciplinary Council in making its decision, including a copy of the audio recording submitted by the University (if available).
However, the Defendant did not provide any specific and sufficient evidence confirming the conclusion that the Plaintiff had committed a corruption offense. In particular, no video recording, audio recording, witness statements or other objective evidence confirming the Plaintiff’s transfer of money, offering of a gift, transfer of material valuables or acts of giving a bribe to the Defendant’s employees was provided.
In addition, the Plaintiff sent a pre-trial complaint requesting the Defendant to reconsider and revoke its Order. In its response to the said complaint dated 6 May 2026, the Defendant stated that there were no legal grounds for revoking the Order and indicated that the Defendant had not accused the Plaintiff of committing any corruption offense, since such powers fall within the competence of authorized state bodies responsible for combating corruption.
However, this position directly contradicts the content of Minutes No. 6 of the Disciplinary Council dated 10 April 2025, i.e. the grounds for the Order. The said Minutes contain a legal assessment of the Plaintiff’s actions as “committing corruption offenses and crimes, including giving or receiving a bribe”, while the Order was issued on the basis of the Minutes.
Thus, on the one hand, the Defendant states in the minutes of the Disciplinary Council that the Plaintiff was accused of actions of a corrupt nature, while on the other hand, in its official response to the pre-trial complaint, it states that no such accusation was made.
This, in turn, demonstrates the inconsistency of the Defendant’s legal position, the fact that the circumstances were not examined objectively and comprehensively during the disciplinary proceedings, and that the decision taken was not based on sufficient evidence. Furthermore, despite the most severe disciplinary sanction – expulsion – having been applied to the Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to properly substantiate its necessity and proportionality.
Thus, the Defendant’s Order does not comply with the principles of legality, fairness, objectivity and proportionality, violates the Plaintiff’s right to education and legitimate interests and, therefore, in our opinion, is subject to being declared unlawful and revoked.
Based on the foregoing, guided by Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Article 47 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Education”,
THE COURT IS REQUESTED TO:
· declare unlawful Order No. 489-s/zhс dated 15 April 2025 of A. Turmukhametova, Chairman of the Board – Rector of NJSC “Astana Medical University”;
· order the reinstatement of STҚarabekkyzy as a student of NJSC “Astana Medical University”;
· recover from NJSC “Astana Medical University” representative expenses in the amount of KZT 600,000 (six hundred thousand), paid by STҚarabekkyzy in connection with legal assistance provided by the representative;
· recover from NJSC “Astana Medical University” expenses for the payment of the state duty in the amount of KZT 4,325 (four thousand three hundred twenty-five), paid by STҚarabekkyzy.
Respectfully,
Representative under Power of Attorney: I.M. Kenesbek
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
