The administrative case was reduced due to the absence of an offense in the actions of an individual
By the resolution of the territorial land Inspectorate of Atyrau region (hereinafter referred to as the Inspectorate) dated September 24, 2013 No. 106, S. was found guilty by Article 118 of the code of administrative offenses of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code), which imposed a fine of 86,550 tenge in the amount of 50 monthly calculation indices. By the decision of the specialized administrative court of Atyrau city dated January 24, 2014, the resolution of the inspection was unchanged, and the complaint of the offender S. was dismissed. The administrative case was not considered on appeal. In protest, the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan disagreed with the resolution of the inspection and the judicial act adopted in the case, canceled them, asked to reduce the Proceedings of the administrative case and satisfy the complaint.
Having heard the conclusion of the prosecutor confirming the motives of the protest, having studied the case materials, the supervisory judicial board comes to the conclusion that the prosecutor's protest is subject to satisfaction on the following grounds. According to the case documents, a resident of the 86th House of the capital of Akkistau village of Isatay district S. on the basis of the certificate of inheritance No. 2-1744 of December 9, 2009, it was established that the actual measurement of the land plot of 0.0750 hectares, issued for the purpose of Housing use and construction, amounted to 0.1365 hectares, overused 0.0615 hectares, committed offenses. However, during the consideration of the case in court, it was established that house 86 on Elorda street, Akkistau village, Isatay District of Atyrau region, together with a land plot of 0.075 hectares, is owned by S.'s mother A., which together with the land plot is owned by A. on the basis of the inheritance certificate dated December 9, 2009. And the son of A. S. is not a resident of 86 Metropolitan Street, where there is a dispute. Therefore, it is established that he lives in house 8 on Amangeldy street in the village of S. Akkistau, where his ownership of the house and land plot did not arise, and there is no corresponding share in this house. However, despite the fact that the protocol on an administrative offense was filled out incorrectly not in relation to the owner of the land plot A., but to his son S., who lived separately and was not related to the land plot, the court refused to satisfy his complaint, claiming that he missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the Inspectorate without good reason. However, the omission of the deadline for filing a complaint in Part 7 of Article 275 of the code of criminal procedure, the expiration of the deadline for imposing an administrative penalty, as well as the deadline for executing the resolution, is not a reason for the court to refuse to accept the complaint for consideration. It is said that the deadlines and their significance for the correct resolution of the case are checked by the court regardless of the content of the complaint. Part 1 of Article 28 of the administrative code specifies that an illegal, guilty (committed intentionally or carelessly) Act or omission of an individual, for which administrative liability is provided under the administrative code, is recognized as an administrative offense. In this case, the administrative case considered by Article 118 of the Administrative Code in relation to S. is subject to termination due to the absence in its actions of the composition of the offense. In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 665 of the administrative code, the inconsistency of the conclusions on the actual circumstances of the case set out in the resolution on the case of an administrative offense with the evidence studied during the consideration of the complaint, protest is the basis for a significant violation of the procedural norms of the Administrative Code. On the basis of the above, the resolution of the territorial land Inspectorate and the ruling on S. of the first instance were canceled, and this case was dismissed from production. The protest of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan was satisfied.
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
