The claim was reasonably returned as not subject to consideration in administrative proceedings.

No. 6001-22-00-6ap/2465 (2) dated 05/16/2023

Plaintiff: Republican Association of Public Associations of hunters and hunting subjects "K"

Respondent: Russian State Institution "Committee of Forestry and Wildlife of the Ministry of Ecology, Geology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as the Committee)

The subject of the dispute: the recognition of the actions of the acting chairman K.E. as illegal, the compulsion to cancel the order for the extraordinary accreditation and to post a message about the invalidity of the announcement of the next accreditation

Review of the plaintiff's cassation appeal.

PLOT:

On 03/19/2021, the Committee published an announcement on the accreditation of republican associations of public associations of hunters and hunting subjects.

In 2021, the plaintiff was issued an accreditation certificate. On 04/22/2021, the Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Civil Service Affairs conducted an unscheduled inspection, which revealed violations in the issuance of an accreditation certificate. In this regard, a letter has been sent to the Committee.

On 05/31/2021, the plaintiff's certificate of accreditation was revoked.By the decision of the SMAS of the city dated 10/13/2021, paragraph 1 of the regulation on the elimination of violations was declared illegal and canceled, the actions of the Committee to revoke the accreditation certificate were declared illegal.

Judicial acts:

1st instance: the claim was returned on the grounds provided for in paragraphs 11) and 12) of the second part of Article 138 of the CPC.

Appeal: the definition remains unchanged.

Cassation: judicial acts are upheld.

Conclusions:

The local courts, returning the claim, concluded that the plaintiff's claim to recognize the actions of Acting Chairman K.E. as illegal, as committed in excess of official authority, cannot be an independent subject of judicial challenge, since in this case the action of the Committee on Revocation of the Accreditation certificate, which has already been the subject of dispute and is now legally binding, is subject to challenge. the court's decision.

In violation of the requirements of subparagraph 4) of the second part of Article 131 of the CPC, upon request to challenge an order for regular accreditation, the plaintiff has not specifically identified the subject of the claim, namely, it has not indicated which order is being challenged.

The Judicial Board agreed that the local courts had legitimately drawn attention to the existing court decision that had entered into force, which denied satisfaction of the claim for the obligation to eliminate the violations by refuting the validity of the announcement of the next accreditation in the newspaper.

The courts drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff missed the deadline for filing a claim provided for in the first part of Article 136 of the CPC, which in turn is an independent basis for returning the claim.

 

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