The facts of the formal attitude of the courts to the received responses to particular definitions are revealed.

Thus, in response to the private determination of the SMEC of the Mangystau region dated February 14, 2019, in a civil case against the Aktau Electric Grid Management Company (GKP) against M LLP for recognition as an unscrupulous participant in public procurement, the plaintiff received a response stating that lawyer E. is on annual leave. The latter circumstance did not prevent the employee from being disciplined upon leaving work (according to the order, he left for work 6 days after the response was sent), however, the IESEC did not achieve the actual execution of the private definition. The private definition of the CFEC of the Pavlodar region dated February 26, 2019 in a civil case on the claim of IP "Medina" to the State Institution "Police Department of the Pavlodar region" indicates the need to take measures against officials who violated the requirements of the Law "On Public Procurement". However, in the response, the state body informed about the execution of the court's decision by giving a strict warning not to any official, but to specialists of the public procurement group, which indicates improper execution of the private ruling. In a civil case filed by IP K. On May 20, 2019, a private ruling was issued to the Akim of Karaganda city, State Institution "Department of Architecture, Urban Planning and Land Relations of Karaganda city", LLP "A" on the invalidation of the agreement on temporary paid land use of the SMES of the Karaganda region, copies of which were sent on May 30, 2019 for information and on June 18, 2019 for execution to the State Institution "Department of Land Relations, Architecture and Urban Planning of the city of Karaganda", Office of the Akim of the city of Karaganda and Office of the Akim of the Karaganda region. Attached to the case file is the response of the deputy akim of the city of Karaganda (without dates, ext., ext. data) that the deadline for bringing the perpetrators to justice has expired.

The facts of the formal attitude of the courts to the received responses to particular definitions are revealed.

The courts attach to the case file responses to private definitions that do not contain information about the measures taken. On March 29, 2019, the Court of the Baikonur District of Astana issued a private ruling to the Regional Chamber of Civil Protection in Astana on the fact of violation of Civil Protection and the norms of the law on enforcement proceedings. In particular, the HSI issued a decision on the temporary restriction of the right of departure of M. outside the Republic of Kazakhstan, within the framework of enforcement proceedings on the assignment of the obligation to perform actions in favor of the RSE at the Republican Veterinary Laboratory, whereas in Article 33 of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Bailiffs", the bailiff has the right, and at the request of the recoverer, is obliged to issue the above-mentioned resolution if the debtor fails to comply with claims in the amount of more than 20 MCI, as well as in case of non-fulfillment of enforcement documents for the collection of periodic payments for more than 3 months. Because M. If she is not a debtor in these categories of cases, then the ban on her leaving the republic is illegal. The Regional Chamber of Civil Protection, in its response to the private ruling, informed the court of the cancellation of the appealed decision, which was recognized by the court as sufficient and attached to the case file. Whereas, in fact, the execution of the court decision took place, and not a private ruling, which was issued on the fact of gross infringement of a citizen's rights to freedom of movement and the prevention of further such violations of the law. The courts allow the facts of leaving private definitions without sending them for execution. Thus, the private definition of the Council of Economic and Social Services of the Mangystau region dated May 29, 2019, addressed to the Department of Health of the Mangystau region in a civil case on the claim of the State Enterprise for the Zhanaozen City Maternity Hospital against IP T. for recognition as an unscrupulous participant in public procurement was sent for review on June 3, 2019, after which it was not applied upon entry into force. for execution (case No. 4712-19-00-2/926). A similar fact was revealed in civil case No. 4712-19-00-1/851, reviewed by the Council of Economic and Social Council of the Mangystau region on the claim of the State Enterprise for PCV Aktau City Polyclinic No. 2 against IP O., reviewed on May 13, 2019. In some civil cases, it is not always possible to execute private rulings due to the expiration of the deadline set for bringing the guilty person to disciplinary responsibility by the Almaty District Court of Astana on June 12, 2018, a private ruling was issued to the Department of Labor Inspection of the Karaganda Region in a civil case against S. to LLP "O" on the recovery of wage arrears and compensation for moral damage. During the consideration of the case, it was established that S. worked at LLP "O" in the period from July 2016 to April 2017 as the head of the site. Prior to filing the claim, the plaintiff applied to the labor Inspectorate with a request to take action against the employer in connection with wage arrears.

The State Labor Inspector has not established any violations of labor legislation in the actions of the employer, however, the court revealed the formality of the inspection. According to the response to the private definition, it is not possible to bring a labor inspector to disciplinary responsibility due to the expiration of the period established by article 45 of the Labor Code. In addition, it should be noted that when studying the materials of civil cases, it was found that there were no answers to particular definitions that actually appear in the IP "Torelik", but are not attached to the cases. This circumstance caused certain difficulties in verifying the issue of the execution of particular definitions. The revealed facts of receiving responses in electronic format, where there was no need for them to be transmitted to judges and the chairman of the court in paper format, indicate the lack of proper control by the chairmen of courts and heads of offices. For example, in a civil case against A. A private ruling was issued to JSC "E" on invalidation of the contract regarding the recovery of the amount on April 3, 2018, however, at the time of the generalization, the response on its execution was missing from the case file, although it was received in electronic format on May 25, 2018 (Aktobe City Court). 

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