The legal force of an act of civil legislation is not retroactive if it is expressly provided for by it.

By virtue of Article 4 of the Civil Code, acts of civil legislation are not retroactive and apply to relations that have arisen after their entry into force. The legal force of an act of civil legislation applies to relations that arose before its entry into force in cases where it is expressly provided for by it.

K. appealed to the court with a claim for the recognition of illegal and cancellation of orders, reinstatement at work, recovery of wages for the time of forced absenteeism and compensation for moral damage. By the decision of the district court no.2 of the Kazybekbiysky district of the city of Karaganda dated March 6, 2020, left unchanged by the decision of the judicial board for Civil Cases of the Karaganda Regional Court dated May 12, 2020, the claim was partially satisfied. The order of the NAO branch dated August 5, 2019 on the application of disciplinary punishment in the form of a reprimand to K. was declared illegal and canceled. The rest of the claim was denied. It follows from the judicial acts that the plaintiff, on the basis of an employment contract dated January 5, 2011, was hired as the head of the branch.

In the period from October 3, 2012 to October 10, 2016, a number of additional agreements were concluded between the parties in connection with the transfer of the plaintiff within the organization. By order dated October 10, 2016, the plaintiff was transferred to the position of head of the Saransk city branch. The additional agreement dated May 17, 2018, the employment contract dated January 5, 2011, is set out in a new version. By an additional agreement dated January 8, 2019, the employee was transferred to a time-based bonus payment with an official salary of 120,000 tenge. In connection with the transfer to piecework-premium remuneration with an official salary of 120,000 tenge, an additional agreement No. 13 dated May 27, 2019 was concluded between the employee and the employer. By order dated August 5, 2019, the plaintiff in accordance with subparagraph 3) paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Labor Code was brought to disciplinary responsibility in the form of a reprimand for improper performance of official duties, resulting in non-fulfillment of the income plan for the 1st half of 2019. By an order dated October 22, 2019, the employment contract with the plaintiff was terminated by agreement of the parties in accordance with subparagraph 1) of Article 49, paragraph 3 of Article 50 and paragraph 96 of the Labor Code, with compensation for unused paid work leave in the amount of 50 calendar days and compensation in the amount of 2 official salaries. According to paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Labor Code, by agreement with an employee, an employment contract may provide for the employer's right to terminate the employment contract without complying with the requirements set out in paragraph 2 of this article, with a compensation payment, the amount of which is determined by the employment contract. According to the order dated October 22, 2019, the employment contract with the plaintiff was terminated by agreement of the parties in accordance with subparagraph 1) of Article 49, paragraph 3 of Article 50 and paragraph 96 of the Labor Code, with compensation for unused paid work leave in the amount of 50 calendar days and compensation in the amount of 2 official salaries. The reasons given are the minutes of the meeting of the disciplinary commission dated September 20, 2019 and the supplementary agreement No. 13 dated May 27, 2019. By virtue of paragraph 27 of the NP, if, when considering a dispute about the reinstatement of a person whose employment contract was terminated by agreement of the parties in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Labor Code, the court concludes that the employment contract, in agreement with the employee, provides for the employer's right to terminate the employment contract without notifying the employee. and without specifying the date of termination, but with the payment of compensation, the amount of which is determined by the employment contract, the employee cannot be reinstated. Subparagraph 1) Clause 8.1 of the supplementary agreement dated May 27, 2019 provides for the termination of the employment contract by agreement of the parties. Subparagraph 3) Paragraph 4.1 of the supplementary agreement establishes the employer's right to apply paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Labor Code within the framework of an employment relationship with payment of compensation in the amount of 2 official salaries. In these circumstances, the conclusions of the courts on the absence of grounds for declaring illegal an order to terminate an employment contract by agreement of the parties are legitimate.

          Regarding the application of the new version of Article 50 of the Labor Code to disputed legal relations.

By virtue of Article 4 of the Civil Code, acts of civil legislation are not retroactive and apply to relations that have arisen after their entry into force.

The legal force of an act of civil legislation applies to relations that arose before its entry into force in cases where it is expressly provided for by it.

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 4, 2020 No. 321-VI SAM "On Amendments and additions to certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on labor issues" does not specify that its effect extends to relations that arose before its entry into force.

The reference in the petition to article 43 of the Law "On Legal Acts" stating that a normative legal act improving the situation of citizens is retroactive is also found to be unjustified, since this provision reflects the provisions of subparagraph 5) of paragraph 3 of Article 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan stating that laws establishing or strengthening liability, Those that impose new responsibilities on citizens or worsen their situation are not retroactive.

According to the clarifications contained in Resolution No. 2/2 of the Constitutional Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 10, 1999 "On the official interpretation of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 14, paragraph 2 of Article 24, subparagraph 5) of paragraph 3 of Article 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan", in accordance with the said constitutional norm, those laws that regulate the legal responsibility of citizens for offenses and establish new types of responsibility or strengthen it by introducing new sanctions.

It follows from this that the expressions "improving the situation" or "worsening the situation" contained in article 43 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Legal Acts" apply only to those laws that regulate the legal responsibility of citizens for offenses and do not apply to civil legislation based on the recognition of equality of participants in the relations regulated by it.

Therefore, prior to the amendments and additions to the Labor Code of May 4, 2020, the provisions of previously concluded employment contracts, which, by agreement with the employee, provide for the employer's right to terminate the employment contract, without notifying the employee and without specifying the date of termination, but with the payment of compensation, the amount of which is determined by the employment contract, do not worsen the situation of employees, since these conditions were stipulated by agreement of the parties during the period of validity of the old version of Article 50 of the Labor Code, and have not lost their legal force in the employment contract.

The basis for termination of an employment contract by agreement of the parties is subparagraph 2) of Article 49 of the Labor Code.

E. filed a lawsuit against the LLP to declare the order to terminate the employment contract illegal, reinstatement at work, recovery of wages for the time of forced absenteeism, invalidation of clause 16.10 of the employment contract.

By an order dated July 31, 2023, the employment contract with the plaintiff was terminated on the basis of subparagraph 1) of Article 49 of the Labor Code and paragraph 16.10 of the employment contract, with compensation in the amount of three monthly salaries.

The case established that the employment contract between the parties was concluded on January 6, 2017, and paragraph 16.10 corresponded to the then-current version of paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Labor Code.

In rejecting the claim, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that at the time of the conclusion of the employment contract, the norm of paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Labor Code was in force, allowing the employer to terminate the employment relationship without the consent of the employee with the payment of appropriate compensation, and the plaintiff did not dispute the terms of the contract.

The Court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance and making a new decision on the satisfaction of the claim in the case, concluded that the employment contract could be terminated and terminated in accordance with the procedure provided for by the current legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

At the time of termination of the employment contract, the norm granting the employer the right to terminate the employment contract without the consent of the employee, with a compensation payment, was excluded from the current labor legislation.

Canceling the decision of the court of appeal and upholding the court's decision, the judicial board of the Supreme Court indicated that the court of appeal had not taken into account that the employment contract between the parties had been concluded before the amendments were made and the fact of the exclusion of paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Labor Code could not indicate the illegality of the contested paragraph 16.10. of the employment contract concluded earlier.

In accordance with Article 383 of the Civil Code, the contract must comply with the rules binding on the parties, established by law (mandatory norms) in force at the time of its conclusion.

If, after the conclusion of the contract, the legislation establishes binding rules for the parties other than those in force at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the terms of the concluded contract remain in force, except in cases where the legislation establishes that its effect extends to relations arising from previously concluded contracts.

In this regard, the presence and application of the norms of the previously valid paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Labor Code in an employment contract concluded before the adoption of the above-mentioned Law does not constitute a violation of labor legislation.

Compliance with the pre-trial dispute settlement procedure

          The practice of applying the requirements of Article 159 of the Labor Code Article 148 of the CPC contains a list of requirements for the form and content of the claim.

According to Part 6 of paragraph 1 of Article 148 of the CPC, the application must contain information on compliance with the pre-trial procedure for contacting the defendant, if this is established by law or provided for by contract.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 159 of the Labor Code, individual labor disputes are considered by conciliation commissions, with the exception of disputes arising between an employer and an employee of a microenterprise entity, a non-profit organization with no more than fifteen employees, a domestic worker, the sole executive body of a legal entity, the head of the executive body of a legal entity, as well as other members of the collegial executive body. a legal entity, and for unresolved issues or non–fulfillment of the decision of the conciliation commission - by the courts.

That is, in disputes arising between an employer and an employee of a microenterprise entity, a non-profit organization with no more than fifteen employees, a domestic worker, the sole executive body of a legal entity, the head of the executive body of a legal entity, as well as other members of the collegial executive body of a legal entity, compliance with the preliminary consideration of the dispute in the conciliation commission is not required.

The requirement to apply to the conciliation Commission also does not apply to certain categories of employees whose work is regulated by the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan with the specifics provided for by special laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan, including those in military service, employees of special state and law enforcement agencies, civil servants.

          However, there are cases when this requirement of the law is violated, and employee applications are returned without legitimate grounds.

K. filed a lawsuit against the LLP to recover wages, compensation payments for staff reductions, pension contributions, social health insurance payments, penalties and moral damages. By the ruling of the Balkhash City Court of the Karaganda region dated August 19, 2022, K.'s claim was returned to the plaintiff with all the documents due to the failure to provide them with a certificate of wage arrears, as well as the absence of a decision by the conciliation commission.

After a second appeal, by the ruling of the Balkhash City Court of the Karaganda region dated September 27, 2022, the application was again returned to the plaintiff due to non-compliance with the pre-trial settlement of the dispute. Returning the application, the court pointed out that the case file contains a copy of the plaintiff's application to the conciliation commission.

However, there is no document confirming its proper delivery to the employer for consideration, and there is no decision of the conciliation commission. On October 14, 2022, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit again.

By the ruling of the Balkhash City Court of the Karaganda region dated October 27, 2022, a mediation agreement was approved between the parties.

However, the case file contains a letter from the State labor inspector, from the contents of which it follows that according to the Unified Register of Subjects and Objects of Inspections (ERSOP) The Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan and according to the certificate of the category of a business entity of the Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the LLP is registered as a microenterprise entity.

Due to the fact that the LLP belongs to the subject of microenterprise, a pre-trial procedure for the settlement of a labor dispute in the conciliation commission was not required. By the ruling of the court No. 2 of the city of Uralsk dated July 4, 2022, D.'s claim against Kurylys Companiyasy LLP for the recovery of wage arrears was returned to the plaintiff due to violation of the pre-trial procedure for applying to the court.

By the ruling of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the West Kazakhstan Regional Court of August 9, 2022, the ruling of July 4, 2022 was canceled with the referral of the case materials to the same court for consideration of the dispute on the merits.

The court of first instance, returning the statement of claim, was guided by paragraph 1 of Article 159 of the Labor Code, referring to the need for the LLP to apply to the conciliation commission.

At the same time, the court did not take into account the fact that the plaintiff is the sole founder and head of this legal entity, accordingly, there was no need to apply to the conciliation commission.

By the ruling of the court No. 2 of the Bayterek district dated November 1, 2021, U.'s claim to LLP for the recovery of wages was returned due to the indisputability of the requirements and the need to comply with the pre-trial dispute settlement procedure by contacting a notary.

By the ruling of the court of appeal of January 20, 2022, the ruling of the district court of November 1, 2021 was canceled and the case materials were sent to the same court for consideration of the dispute on the merits.

In accordance with the requirements of subparagraph 9) of paragraph 2 of Article 92-1 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Notaries", an executive inscription or a corresponding resolution is issued by a notary upon indisputable claims for the recovery of wages and other payments accrued but not paid to an employee.

As follows from the content of the claim, the employment contract between the parties to the dispute was not concluded, therefore, the plaintiff's salary was not accrued, the claim for its recovery is based on a time sheet and a travel list.

These circumstances indicate that there is a dispute between the parties related to the plaintiff's employment relationship with the defendant and the existence of wage arrears.

Consequently, the dispute was subject to judicial review.

Terms of application for consideration of individual labor disputes (Article 160 of the Labor Code)

The following deadlines are set for applying to the conciliation commission or the court for the consideration of individual labor disputes:

1) for disputes about reinstatement at work – one month from the date of delivery or sending by registered mail with a notification of delivery of a copy of the employer's act on termination of the employment contract to the conciliation commission, and for applying to the court – two months from the date of delivery or sending by registered mail with a notification of delivery of a copy of the decision of the conciliation commission when applying for unresolved disputes or when a party to an employment contract fails to comply with its decision;

2) in other labor disputes – one year from the day when the employee, including those who had previously been in an employment relationship, or the employer learned or should have learned about the violation of his right.

The term of the application for consideration of individual labor disputes is suspended during the period of validity of the mediation agreement on the labor dispute under consideration, as well as in the absence of a conciliation commission before its establishment.

In case of missing the deadline for applying for valid reasons, the conciliation commission for labor disputes may restore the deadline for applying to the conciliation commission if there are valid reasons for missing and resolve the dispute on its merits.

The conciliation commission independently determines whether the reasons why an employee, including those who previously had an employment relationship, did not apply to the conciliation commission within the established time frame are valid.

The following deadlines are set for participants in labor relations who have the right, in accordance with the Labor Code, to go to court without contacting the conciliation commission for individual labor disputes.:

for disputes about reinstatement at work – three months from the date of delivery or sending by registered mail with a notification of delivery of a copy of the employer's act on termination of the employment contract;

In other labor disputes, it is one year from the day when the employee, including those who had previously been in an employment relationship, learned or should have learned about the violation of his right.

It follows from the above–mentioned provisions of the law that, for the consideration of individual labor disputes between the parties to an employment contract, the law establishes a procedure for pre-trial dispute settlement, with the exception of certain categories of employees, namely, contacting the conciliation commission and only after receiving a copy of the decision when applying for an unresolved issue or if the party to the employment contract fails to comply with its decision, to the court.

At the same time, in the absence of a conciliation commission, the time limit for applying is suspended until its creation, which does not entail the expiration of the time limit for considering an individual labor dispute.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 159 of the Labor Code, the procedure for the formation and activities of the conciliation commission are determined by an Agreement on the work of the conciliation commission or a collective agreement.

M. filed a lawsuit with LLP No. 1 and LLP No. 2 to declare the dismissal orders illegal, to collect salary arrears, and to transfer mandatory pension contributions and contributions to the Social Health Insurance Fund.

By the decision of the Kordai District Court of Zhambyl region dated December 2, 2021, the claim was denied in full.

The court of first instance motivated the refusal to satisfy the claim by the fact that M., on the basis of employment contracts dated May 13, 2020, was hired as a supplier in LLP No. 1 and LLP No. 2.

The orders to dismiss the plaintiff were issued based on his statements. According to the act of July 14, 2020, M. refused to review the order.

In court, the plaintiff's representative confirmed that the resignation letters were written by M. After the dismissal, the employer made a full settlement with him.

At the hearing, the defendant's representative filed a motion to apply the statute of limitations, since the claim was filed after more than one year from the date of dismissal.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit challenging the dismissal orders on September 16, 2021, while the dismissal order was issued on July 13, 2020.

It follows from the judicial acts that M. applied to the court with a claim for recovery of wage arrears in March 2021. By a court decision dated May 18, 2021, the claim was dismissed.

However, he filed a lawsuit challenging the dismissal orders on September 16, 2021, that is, after more than 1 year and 2 months from the date the orders were issued.

The plaintiff did not provide the court with sufficient and reliable evidence indicating that the statute of limitations was respected.

In this regard, the conclusions of the court of appeal on the cancellation of the judicial act of the court of first instance are unlawful.

Jurisdiction

In accordance with paragraph 5 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On certain issues of the application of legislation by courts in the resolution of labor disputes" dated October 6, 2017 No. 9 (hereinafter referred to as NP), claims for disputes arising from labor relations are subject to filing with the court according to the general rules of civil procedure at the location of the defendant, a legal entity. the person or place of residence of the employer of the individual acting as a defendant in the dispute.

According to Part 2 of Article 29 of the CPC, a claim against a legal entity is filed in court at the location of the legal entity according to the constituent documents and (or) the address entered in the National Register of Business Identification Numbers.

When lawsuits are filed at the location of a branch or representative office in accordance with the procedure provided for in part three of Article 30 of the CPC, only legal entities may be defendants.

Questions of jurisdiction in cases of the generalized category do not cause difficulties. Thus, by the ruling of the Ust-Kamenogorsk City Court, the civil case on the claim of Zh. The claim for recovery of damages, payment for overtime, compensation for moral damage has been transferred to the jurisdiction of the inter-district Court for Civil Cases of Astana city for consideration on the merits. The court's ruling is correct because it has been established that the defendant is a legal entity located and registered at:

Astana city, D.Konaeva Street, claims for disputes arising from labor relations are subject to filing in court according to the general rules of civil procedure at the defendant's location. In addition, I consider it necessary to draw the courts' attention to the requirements of Article 19 of the Labor Code, according to which the head of a branch or representative office of a foreign legal entity exercises all rights and performs all duties the employer on behalf of this legal entity.

Consequently, an employee has the right to file a claim at the location of a branch of a foreign legal entity, having previously verified the rights of the head of the branch to represent the interests of the legal entity.

The issue of determining the jurisdiction of labor disputes in case of rehabilitation or bankruptcy of the employer.

          Thus, by virtue of the provisions of Part 8 of Article 35 of the CPC, cases on disputes arising within the framework of rehabilitation and bankruptcy procedures, including the recognition of transactions concluded by the debtor or a person authorized by him, as invalid, on the return of the debtor's property, on the recovery of receivables from claims of a bankrupt or rehabilitation manager, are considered by the same judge, which have issued a decision on the application of a rehabilitation procedure or on declaring the debtor bankrupt, with the exception of dispute cases, the jurisdiction of which is established by Article 31 of the CPC.

By the ruling of the Aktobe City Court dated February 15, 2021, Zh.'s claim against LLP for the cancellation of orders on suspension from work, dismissal, reinstatement, recovery of wages for overtime, recovery of wages for forced absenteeism, recovery of penalties, moral damage was returned on the basis of subparagraph 2 of part 1 of Article 152 of the PC due to lack of jurisdiction. dispute to this court.

Returning the claim, the court pointed out that the decision of the Council of Ministers of the Aktobe region applied a rehabilitation procedure to the Partnership, and therefore, in accordance with part 8 of Article 35 of the CPC, the case is subject to consideration by the economic court.

Indeed, a rehabilitation procedure was applied to the Partnership by the decision of the Council of Ministers of the Aktobe region Court of October 14, 2016, which entered into force.

By virtue of the provisions of sub-paragraphs 5, 7 of Article 67 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy", the court in the rehabilitation procedure accepts cases on property disputes in which the debtor acts as a defendant, and also resolves disputes between participants in the rehabilitation procedure.

According to subparagraph 16) of paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Labor Code, a labor dispute is a disagreement between an employee (employees) and an employer (employers), including those who previously had an employment relationship, on the application of labor legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the fulfillment or amendment of the terms of agreements, labor and (or) collective agreements, acts of the employer.

It has been established that the dispute between the parties arises from an employment relationship, is based on the norms of labor legislation and the terms of employment contracts and is not related to the implementation of a rehabilitation procedure.

Since the court incorrectly applied the provisions of part 8 of Article 35 of the CPC, by the ruling of the judicial board of March 12, 2021, the court's ruling was canceled and the issue was referred to the court of first instance for reconsideration.

In cases where an employer is declared bankrupt or a rehabilitation procedure is applied, disputes arising from an employment relationship (about reinstatement at work, recovery of wages, etc.) are subject to consideration and resolution in courts of general jurisdiction, the provisions of Part 8 of Article 35 of the CPC do not apply to labor disputes.

State duty

According to the requirements of paragraph 7 of Article 610 of the Tax Code, the state duty is levied on non-property claims in the amount of 0.5 MCI.

Based on the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 951 of the Civil Code, moral harm is a violation, diminution or deprivation of personal non–property benefits and rights of individuals.

According to the requirements of Article 149 of the CPC, a document confirming payment of the state fee is attached to the claim.

In accordance with subparagraph 1) of Article 616 of the Tax Code, plaintiffs are exempt from paying state duties in courts for claims for recovery of wages and other claims related to work.

In case of satisfaction of the claim, the court, in accordance with Article 117 of the CPC, is obliged to collect a state fee to the state revenue from the defendant, who is not exempt from its payment.

There are individual cases when courts, in violation of subparagraph 2) of part 1 of Article 149 of the CPC, accept claims for court proceedings without paying a state fee.

It follows from the case file that A. filed a lawsuit against the LLP to recover wages, compensation for downtime, penalties, and compensation for moral damage.

By the decision of the Zhetysu District Court of Almaty dated April 13, 2022, upheld by the decision of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Almaty City Court, wage arrears, penalties, compensation for moral damage, and expenses for paying for the representative's assistance were recovered from LLP in favor of A.

The LLP is responsible for making pension contributions and other mandatory payments for the period of A.'s employment from June 22, 2021 to August 2021.

Limitation period for labor disputes

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 179 of the Civil Code, the limitation period is applied by the court only upon the application of the party to the dispute made before the court's decision.

The court is obliged to accept the claim for consideration regardless of the expiration of the limitation period.

Refusal or return of the application due to the expiration of the limitation period is unacceptable. Compliance with the statute of limitations or their expiration, the presence of valid reasons for missing the deadline for applying to the court should be checked when considering the dispute.

In the absence of a statement on the application of the limitation period before the decision is made, the dispute is resolved on its merits.

So, the plaintiff S. appealed to the court with a claim to the Institution for reinstatement and recovery of wages for the time of forced absenteeism. By the decision of the District Court No. 2 of the Bayterek district of the West Kazakhstan region dated November 29, 2021, the claim was reasonably dismissed due to the omission of the statute of limitations based on the defendant's statement.

The court reasoned its conclusions by the fact that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on October 27, 2021, while the termination order was issued on June 11, 2020.

The plaintiff did not provide sufficient and reliable evidence of the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for applying to the court.

The case was not considered on appeal.

Regulatory framework The main regulatory legal acts to be applied in the consideration of cases of the generalized category are

·       Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan; Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (General Part) dated December 27, 1994;

· The Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Special Part) dated July 1, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code);

· Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 31, 2015 No. 377- V (hereinafter – CPC);

·       The Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 23, 2015 No. 414- V SAM (hereinafter referred to as the Labor Code);

·       On Taxes and other mandatory payments to the Budget (Tax Code) dated December 25, 2017 No. 120-VI SAM (hereinafter – NK);

·       Business Code of October 29, 2015 No. 375-V SAM; Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 7, 2020 No. 360-VI SAM "On the health of the people and the healthcare system";

· The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Trade Unions"; the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 2, 2010 No. 261-IV "On enforcement proceedings and the status of bailiffs";

· Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 14, 1997 No. 155-I "On Notary"; Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 22, 1998 No. 220-1 "On Limited and Additional Liability Partnerships";

· Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 13, 2003 No. 415 "On Joint-Stock Companies";

regulatory rulings of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan:

· "On some issues of the application of legislation by courts in the resolution of labor disputes" dated October 6, 2017 No. 9;

· "On the application by courts of legislation on compensation for moral damage" dated November 27, 2015 No. 7;

· "On the court decision on civil cases" dated July 11, 2003 No. 5;

· "On the application by the courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan of legislation on court costs in civil cases" dated December 25, 2006 No. 9.

President    

Republic of Kazakhstan     

© 2012. RSE na PHB "Institute of Legislation and Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan" of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan  

 Constitution Law Code Standard Decree Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases