The text is very long (several pages) and exceeds the maximum length that can be translated in a single response.

According to paragraph 9 of Article 13 of the Law, citizens have the right to privatize only one dwelling in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan from the housing stock.

The practice in these categories of disputes varies.

For example, the resolution of the SCAD of the Supreme Court changed the decision and resolution of the SCAD of the Pavlodar Regional Court on the claim of I.Sh. to the akim, the State Duma on recognizing as illegal and canceling the resolution of the Akimat of Pavlodar in part 18, recognizing as illegal the decision of the housing commission regarding the refusal to privatize an apartment and on eliminating violations by concluding a housing privatization agreement (No. 6001-23-00-6ap/670).

The claim is motivated by the fact that he was unlawfully denied the privatization of his occupied housing, which is not related to the departmental housing stock.

By the decision of the SMAS of Pavlodar region dated August 31, 2022, the claim was partially satisfied: the resolution of the Akimat dated November 5, 2020 No. 2168\7 was declared illegal and canceled; the decision of the housing commission on the distribution of housing regarding the refusal to privatize the apartment was declared illegal.

The rest of the claim was denied.

For reference: It follows from the case file that, by the appealed resolution of the akim dated November 5, 2020 No. 2168/7 "On issues of communal property", communal property, including the disputed apartment, was transferred to the departmental housing fund of the State Duma. On 02/09/2021, G. I. applied to the department of the State Duma for housing from the departmental housing fund due to the lack of his own housing in the city of Pavlodar.

By the protocol decision of the commission for the distribution of housing from the departmental housing stock (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) dated 02/10/2021, the plaintiff was provided with departmental housing for the period of his official duties in the Department without the right to privatize.

On the same day, an apartment rental agreement was signed between the GU and the plaintiff. 03.03.2022. the plaintiff applied for the privatization of the above apartment.

By the decision of the Commission dated 06/21/2022, the plaintiff was denied the application due to the fact that the apartment belongs to the departmental housing stock.

Disagreeing with the refusal, the plaintiff appealed to the court.

The local courts, partially satisfying the claim, motivated their conclusions by the fact that the authority of the State Duma includes the function of distributing housing from the communal housing stock, and the apartment provided to the plaintiff is not departmental housing, but refers to official housing. Based on the plaintiff's lack of other housing, departmental housing on the employer's balance sheet, the contested resolution on the transfer of the disputed apartment to the departmental housing fund is illegal.

The judicial board did not agree with these conclusions of the local courts due to the following.

According to the fourth part of Article 155 of the CPC, the court refuses to satisfy the claim if, upon its consideration, it finds that the contested action (inaction) has been committed, the decision has been made in accordance with the competence and legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

By paragraph 1-5) of Article 2 of the Law, the departmental housing fund includes official dwellings on the balance sheet of state institutions, intended to be provided to civil servants appointed to positions on a rotating basis, by decision of the housing commission, to live for the period of their official duties without the right to further privatization.

In accordance with paragraph 3-2 of Article 67 of the Law, housing from the departmental housing stock is provided for use by civil servants in need of housing in a given locality, appointed to a position on a rotating basis, for the period of their official duties.

According to subparagraph 8-1) of paragraph 7 of Article 13 of the Law, dwellings provided from the departmental housing stock by civil servants appointed to a position on a rotating basis for the period of their official duties may not be privatized.

From the plaintiff's statement on the provision of an apartment, the protocol decision of the Commission dated 02/10/2021, it follows that the apartment contested by the plaintiff was provided to him as a civil servant appointed to the position on a rotating basis for the period of performance of official duties of the head of the Department. It was established in the case, and the plaintiff does not dispute, that there were no other grounds for providing the latter with official housing from the state housing stock.

In this regard, the conclusions of the local courts that the contested apartment is not departmental housing and is subject to privatization are erroneous, contrary to the circumstances of the case and the requirements of the law.

The fact that the balance holder of the disputed apartment was the State Administration, and not the Department, does not deprive it of the status of departmental office housing, which is not subject to privatization. Exercising the powers to ensure the preservation and proper operation of the housing stock provided for in 10-3 of the Law, the akim, transferring the disputed apartment to the balance of the State Budget, acted within the limits of his powers and administrative competence.

In accordance with part four of Article 6 of the CPC, violation of the principles of administrative procedures and administrative proceedings, depending on its nature and materiality, entails the recognition of administrative acts, administrative actions (inaction) as illegal, as well as the cancellation of judicial acts.

Based on the above, the judicial board, guided by the principles and objectives of administrative proceedings, came to the conclusion that the contested judicial acts had been amended in terms of satisfying the claim, with a new decision rejecting the plaintiff's claims.

Another example is related to a housing dispute arising from a privatization agreement.

For reference: M. appealed to the KSU court to declare illegal the decision of the housing commission to refuse to privatize the occupied dwelling and to impose the obligation to grant permission to privatize the occupied dwelling (No. 6001-22-00-6ap/1433).

By the decision of the SMASNur-Sultan's claim was denied, which was left unchanged by the decision of the Court of Appeal of the SCAD of Nur-Sultan.

By the resolution of the cassation of 12.01.2023 The judicial acts of the local courts were annulled with the issuance of a new decision on the satisfaction of the claim.

On 01.10.2021, on the basis of a lease agreement for office housing, plaintiff M. and his family members were provided with a 3-room apartment No. 37, total area 95.3 sq.m., located in the city of Nur-Sultan (hereinafter referred to as the disputed apartment), which, on the basis of an order dated 08/06/2020, is located on the right of operational management of KSU.

On 10/20/2021, the plaintiff filed an application with the Housing and Housing Inspectorate for the gratuitous privatization of the disputed apartment, enclosing statements from all members of his family about their refusal to participate in the privatization of the apartment and their share of ownership in it after its privatization, which were forwarded to the Housing Fund for consideration.

On 28.10.2021, the decision of the housing commission denied the plaintiff the privatization of housing, because the family members of the tenant specified in the rental agreement had previously used their right to privatize housing from the housing stock. Citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan have the right to privatize only one housing from the housing stock in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Disagreeing with the above-mentioned refusal, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit with the court.

The courts, rejecting the claim, recognized the contested refusal to privatize the apartment as justified, since the plaintiff's family members, namely the spouse and the eldest son, had previously exercised their right to privatize housing from the housing Stock Fund by privatizing a 1-room apartment in Almaty. The courts considered that the plaintiff had no right to demand its privatization.

However, these conclusions of the local courts do not comply with the circumstances and requirements of the law established in the case. The decision of the housing commission to refuse to grant permission to privatize the occupied dwelling is illegal, violating the rights and legitimate interests of the plaintiff, who has not previously exercised the right to privatize housing from the housing stock.

It was established that at the time of the apartment's privatization, the plaintiff was in a registered marriage with A., and they had two minor children dependent on them.

According to paragraph 4 of Article 101 of the Law, military personnel, employees of special state bodies, as well as persons dismissed from military service or from service in special state bodies upon reaching the age limit for service, for health reasons or in connection with staff reductions, having a length of service of twenty years or more in calendar terms, have the right to privatize their positions apartments equated to official ones are free of charge.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 75 of the Law, as amended on August 7, 2000, a dwelling from the state housing stock is provided in the amount of at least 50 square meters and not more than 18 square meters of usable space per person, but not less than a one-room apartment.

By virtue of article 2 of the Law, the usable area of a dwelling (apartment) is the sum of the residential and non-residential areas of a dwelling.

According to paragraph 2 of article 13 of the Law, a privatized dwelling becomes the common joint property of the tenant and all family members permanently residing with him, including those temporarily absent, unless otherwise provided by an agreement between them.

In this regard, the plaintiff's explanations deserve attention that he and his second son were not included in the privatization agreement of the apartment, which is actually a common joint property, only due to the discrepancy between the usable area of the dwelling and the composition of a family of 4 people. If all family members were included in the privatization agreement, each member's share would amount to 25%.

In view of the above, the grounds for refusing the plaintiff to privatize the apartment are formal in nature and restrict him in exercising the right guaranteed by law.

Judicial acts of local courts contradict the main goals and objectives, the principles of administrative proceedings, and therefore they were canceled with the issuance of a new decision on the satisfaction of the claim in full.

Another example: by a court decision of January 19, 2022, the claim of J. was dismissed. to the Mayor, the Department, and the Administration on the recognition of illegal actions and decisions of the housing commission on the refusal to satisfy the application for gratuitous privatization of the apartment occupied by him, on the obligation to eliminate the violations.

By the decision of the SCAD Aktobe Regional Court dated April 19, 2022, the decision of the court of first instance remained unchanged.

By the resolution of the SCAD of the Supreme Court of November 22, 2022, these judicial acts were canceled with the adoption of a new decision on the satisfaction of the claim. It was decided to recognize the actions of the akim, Department, Management as illegal and cancel the decision of the housing commission under the Akimat of Aktobe on the refusal of Zh. in the gratuitous privatization of the apartment he occupies (No. 6001-22-00-6ap/1102).

For reference: The plaintiff is an employee of the State Institution.

Zh. applied to the Akimat of Aktobe with an application for gratuitous privatization of disputed housing as a person with more than 10 years of public service experience and who suffered as a result of an environmental disaster in the Aral Sea region.

By the decision of the housing Commission under the Akimat dated 30.09.2021 in satisfaction of the application of Zh. refused.

Rejecting the claim, the courts proceeded from the fact that the disputed housing belongs to the communal housing fund and is not the property of the State Institution, it is not on its balance sheet, therefore it is not an office dwelling or an apartment equated to an office one.

Considering that the official documents did not establish the status of the housing disputed by the plaintiff, the judicial board concluded that the housing provided to the plaintiff belongs to the category of housing equated to office, since according to

within the meaning of the second paragraph of subparagraph 4) of paragraph 1 of Article 67 of the Law, dwellings provided to civil servants, to which the plaintiff belongs, except for dwellings rented by a local executive body in a private housing fund, are equated to official ones.

Let's also give another example, the administrative case on G.'s claim to the Russian State University for recognition as illegal and cancellation of the protocol decision of the housing commission on the refusal to privatize the apartment.

For reference: By the decision of the SMAS of East Kazakhstan Region, the claim was satisfied on the basis of the principle of fairness, indicating that the plaintiff has more than 20 years of experience as a judge, has lived for 12 years and bears the burden of maintaining the disputed apartment, and paid part of its cost when purchasing the apartment.

By the decision of the SKAD of East Kazakhstan Region dated June 22, 2023, the court's decision was overturned, and a new decision was made to dismiss the claim.

The Board noted that the plaintiff had previously exercised her right to privatize housing from the state housing fund under an agreement on the privatization of an apartment dated October 9, 2003, which she subsequently donated to her niece, and the law does not provide for the re-privatization of other housing.

Paragraph 9 of Article 13 of the Law clearly states that a person has the right to privatize only one dwelling from the state housing fund in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

In addition, the plaintiff did not indicate in her statement on the privatization of housing that the previously privatized apartment had been privatized by her without a coupon mechanism.

It was also established that the plaintiff's application dated April 21, 2022 was not considered within the established time frame before the separation balance was drawn up, and the hearing was not held due to the creation of the Abai region and the abolition of some regional courts.

However, the SKAD of East Kazakhstan Region concluded that these violations as a whole did not lead to the adoption of an incorrect administrative act, therefore, an essentially correct administrative act cannot be recognized as illegal on formal grounds alone.

By the resolution of the SCAD of the Armed Forces, the resolution of the SCAD of East Kazakhstan Region dated June 22, 2023 was upheld (No. 6001-23-00-6ap/2192).

A notable example is also the claim of an active serviceman in need of housing.

For reference: M. filed a lawsuit with the Russian State University of Economics and the Housing Commission to declare illegal and annul the decision of the garrison housing commission, imposing the obligation to recognize the plaintiff with a family of five people in need of housing to provide official housing.

By the decision of the military court of the Almaty garrison of August 17, 2022, M.'s claim was denied.

By the decision of the judicial Board for civil cases of the Military Court dated December 6, 2022, the court's decision was overturned and a new decision was made to satisfy the claim. The decision of the housing commission to refuse to recognize the plaintiff with a family of five people in need of official housing was declared illegal; it was decided to oblige the housing commission to eliminate in full the violations of the plaintiff's rights.

By the decision of the Housing Commission No. 5 dated May 19, 2022, the plaintiff was denied registration as a person in need of housing, with a family of five people. The refusal is motivated by the fact that he had previously been provided with housing, exercised his right to privatize it, and also alienated the apartment by terminating the privatization agreement, and since that moment, five years have not passed, established by housing legislation.

The Court of Appeal, overturning the court's decision, found that after receiving official housing at the place of service in 2005, the family composition increased due to the birth of children, as a result of which the housing occupied by him and his family members did not comply with sanitary standards provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 75 of the Law, and therefore, on 04/13/2022, the plaintiff I applied to the Housing and Communal Services department and terminated the privatization agreement.

It was established that the apartment was returned to M. and is currently in the state housing fund. Neither he nor his family members own any housing, which is confirmed by a certificate of absence (availability) of real estate. The plaintiff is an active serviceman, has more than 20 years of service in calendar terms and, in accordance with the requirements of the above-mentioned law, has the right to place him in the queue of persons in need of housing.

By the decision of the SCAD of the Supreme Court of September 7, 2023, the appeal decision was upheld (No. 6001-23-00-6ap/184).

As another example, let us cite the decision of the SMAS of Almaty dated June 7, 2022 (reviewed in written proceedings). A.D.'s claim to the Office for declaring illegal the refusal to privatize housing from the communal housing stock (No. 7594-22-00-4/942) was satisfied.

For reference: the court found that by the decision of the akim of the Bostandyk district of Almaty, A. was assigned to the KSU "Boarding School" at the age of eight, then in 2002 he was transferred to the municipal state institution "Orphanage" of the Almaty City Education Department. Subsequently, on 08/27/2008, he was transferred to the KSU "House of Youth" and dropped out of this institution in 2019.

In 2012, A.D. independently joined the queue for housing from the communal housing stock of Almaty in the category of "orphans and children left without parental care."

By Decree of the Akim of Almaty dated 12/15/2021 No. 4/652, the plaintiff, consisting of 5 people, was given secondary housing with an area of 41.5 square meters.m., built in 1978 with the right to privatize at residual value. On the same day, a rental agreement was signed between the Management and A.D. 03/10/2022 via the portal gosreestr.kz The plaintiff submitted an application for privatization to the Management, but the response from 04/07/2022 was refused, since A.D. did not belong to the category of "orphaned children" at the time of the appeal, due to exceeding the age of 29 years.

The court found the defendant's arguments to be untenable that the plaintiff was denied the privatization of the above-mentioned apartment due to the plaintiff reaching the age of twenty-nine.

The Law regulates the procedure for the privatization of housing and defines a list of subjects of housing relations who receive ownership of their occupied housing from the state housing fund free of charge. In particular, according to article 13 of the Law, in the cases provided for by this Law, the tenant of a dwelling from the state housing stock, with the consent of adult family members and taking into account the rights of minors, has the right to privatize the dwelling at its residual value on the terms provided for by this Law and in accordance with the procedure determined by the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

It follows from paragraph 6 of article 68 of the Law that socially vulnerable segments of the population include: orphans and children left without parental care, under the age of twenty-nine, who lost their parents before adulthood.

Moreover, the age requirement for citizens who belong to orphaned children or children left without parental care is provided only when citizens are registered.

Persons of the Republic of Kazakhstan in need of housing from the communal housing stock or housing rented by a local executive body in a private housing stock, in accordance with subparagraph 7) of paragraph 3 of the Rules for Registration of citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan in need of housing from the communal housing stock or housing rented by a local executive body in a private housing stock, approved by a decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 26.06.2012 №856.

Consequently, the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan does not provide for an age requirement for the privatization of housing from the state housing stock.

At the same time, the defendant's side does not dispute the plaintiff's arguments that, due to the fault of the orphanage staff, he was not registered in need of housing in a timely manner, and also, as a result of self-treatment, he was registered in the category of "orphaned children", and in December 2021 he received an apartment from the state housing fund.

In such circumstances, the court considered that the Office, as an authorized state body, bears increased responsibility for providing housing, including the right to privatization, to those groups of citizens who have a high degree of housing needs and are unable to solve housing problems with their own capabilities.

Another example is related to the transfer of housing into communal ownership.

For reference: By the court's decision of May 3, 2023, which was left unchanged by the decision of the appellate instance of August 2, 2023, R.'s administrative claim against the Russian State University for coercion to transfer the apartment to communal ownership for gratuitous privatization was satisfied.

The court ordered that R.'s apartment be transferred to communal ownership for gratuitous privatization.

It has been established that the plaintiff is entitled to benefits as a person who suffered as a result of nuclear tests at the Semipalatinsk test site.

By the protocol decision of the meeting of the Housing Commission of the Russian State University of Economics dated 09.11.2020, the privatization of the apartment was allowed (7 people voted unanimously in favor). The plaintiff did not privatize Apartment No. 60 while working at the Russian State University.

Born on 03/04/2021, he was transferred to the Russian State University for further service.

Satisfying the claim, the court concluded that the decision of the Housing Commission of the Russian State University of Economics dated 09.11.2020 was not recognized as illegal, in accordance with paragraph 19 of the Rules for the Privatization of Housing from the State Housing Stock, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 2, 2013 No. 673 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the defendant, after making the decision on privatization, had to to transfer apartment No. 60 to communal ownership within 15 calendar days, which has not been done.

In addition, the plaintiff, as a person who suffered as a result of nuclear tests at the Semipalatinsk Nuclear test site, has the right to receive ownership of their occupied housing from the state housing stock free of charge.

Paragraph 12 of the Rules stipulates that the decision on the privatization of housing is taken by: housing commissions of state institutions from the housing stock of state institutions.

In accordance with paragraph 24 of the Rules, a change in the applicant's place of work after receiving a decision on the privatization of housing in installments in accordance with the established procedure does not affect the further exercise of his right to privatize housing under the specified decision.

By virtue of subparagraph 4) of paragraph 8 of Article 13 of the Law, citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan who suffered as a result of nuclear tests at the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site have the right to receive ownership of their occupied dwellings from the state housing stock free of charge.

Taking into account the above, the court concluded that the claim was satisfied in full, since this ensured a fair balance of interests of the participants in the administrative procedure.

By the resolution of the SCAD of the Supreme Court of February 7, 2024, judicial acts of local courts were upheld (No. 6001-23-00-6ap/2406).

The following example is related to the obligation of a government agency to conclude a contract of employment

For reference: By the decision of the SMAS of Astana dated August 17, 2023, which was left unchanged by the decision of the SCAD Court of Astana dated November 22, 2023, on the assignment of the obligation and compulsion to conclude a lease agreement, it was satisfied: the GU was charged with the obligation to conclude a rental agreement with Sh.

It was established that from 05/15/1998 to 11/14/2005, Sh. was in an employment relationship with the GKP on PCV.

During the period of the plaintiff's work at the GKP on PCV, the latter acquired ownership of an apartment on September 30, 1998 for temporary possession until December 31, 1999.

By the protocol decision of the administrative commission of the State Committee for Housing and Communal Services dated 02/20/2001, the issue of the purchase or release of the disputed apartment must be resolved by March 1, 2001. By the reply of the Deputy Akim of Astana dated September 14, 2001 to the address of the State Committee for Housing and Communal Services, consent was given to transfer the disputed apartment to the ownership of the plaintiff.

On October 5, 2005, the disputed apartment was transferred from the balance of the GKP to the balance of the LLP.

Subsequently, the disputed property was transferred to the communal ownership of Astana from the balance sheet of the LLP on the basis of the resolution of the Akimat of Astana No. 16-124p dated February 8, 2007 on a gratuitous basis.

However, the right to the disputed property has not been properly registered with the registration authorities.

The plaintiff's appeals for the privatization of the disputed apartment and the conclusion of a lease agreement for the disputed property were left without satisfaction.

Earlier, the decisions of the court of the Baikonur district of Astana in satisfying the claims of Sh. the recognition of ownership rights by virtue of the statute of limitations and the recognition of the disputed property by the employer was refused.

The courts proceeded from the fact that the disputed property was transferred to the plaintiff by the employer as office housing and the apartment is currently owned by the public, in connection with which, the defendant has the right to issue a lease agreement with the plaintiff. The inaction of the owners of the property to release it in a timely manner and assume the burden of its maintenance indicates that the plaintiff's residence in the disputed apartment is legitimate. In addition, the change of ownership did not result in the termination of the plaintiff's right to live in the disputed apartment.

According to paragraph 1 of Article 67 of the Law, dwellings from the communal housing stock or dwellings rented by a local executive body from a private housing stock are provided for use by citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan permanently residing in this locality. To register citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan in cities of national importance, the capital requires permanent residence for at least three years.

Paragraph 2 of the above-mentioned article stipulates that dwellings from the housing stock of state-owned enterprises are provided for use by employees of this enterprise in need of housing. The housing provided to them is equivalent to official housing.

Consequently, the courts concluded that the late and improper registration of ownership of the disputed property does not indicate that the apartment is not in communal ownership. Failure to properly register property taken into communal ownership on the basis of a resolution of a local executive body, in the opinion of the judicial board, is an omission on the part of the authorized bodies, whereas this circumstance should not entail adverse consequences for the plaintiff.

Given that the disputed property was transferred to communal ownership, the courts concluded that the plaintiff had the right to conclude a lease agreement with the Office.

Therefore, taking into account the principle of protecting the right to trust, based on their criteria of fairness and reasonableness, taking into account that throughout

For 25 years, the authorized bodies did not show any interest in the disputed property and did not ensure proper registration of property rights, the courts concluded that the claim was justified (No. 7194-23-00-4/2169).

Conciliation procedures 

The APPC provides for the possibility of conducting conciliation procedures for disputes arising from public law relations, however, reconciliation of the parties is allowed if the defendant has administrative discretion. This provision of the legislation is justified due to the fact that the elimination of violations of the rights of a citizen or a legal entity is possible by canceling the appealed act or terminating any action by the state body or official himself.

The parties may, on the basis of mutual concessions, completely or partially end the administrative case by concluding an agreement on reconciliation, mediation or dispute settlement in a participatory procedure at all stages (stages) of the administrative process until the court is removed for adjudication.

The adoption by the court of measures to reconcile the parties and assist them in settling the dispute at all stages of the process follows from the tasks of administrative proceedings. Taking a neutral position regarding the claims of the parties, the court explains to the parties their right to conduct conciliation procedures and the legal consequences of concluding such agreements.

At the same time, the application of the principles of the APPC (the active role of the court, fairness, proportionality), measures of procedural coercion (monetary penalties) and conciliation procedures in the framework of administrative proceedings significantly improved the quality of consideration of cases in the analyzed category.

Thus, the implementation of the principle of an active role contributes to the resolution of the dispute by the court or the withdrawal of the claim due to the peaceful settlement of the dispute or clarification of the prospects for the consideration of the case. For example, the defendant himself cancels the disputed act or performs actions that eliminate the existence of a dispute.

Jurisdiction

When considering cases on disputes arising from housing legal relations, compliance with the rules of jurisdiction, the filing of a claim by persons who have the right to claim, and the correct definition of the subject of the claim are of particular importance for dispute resolution.

Jurisdiction is determined according to the rules of Articles 102, 103 and 106 of the CPC. At the request of the plaintiff, cases referred to the jurisdiction of a specialized district and equivalent administrative court may be considered by the court at the plaintiff's place of residence, with the exception of cases under the jurisdiction of specialized district and equivalent administrative courts located within cities of republican significance and the capital, regional centers.

By virtue of article 103 of the CPC, military courts consider administrative cases involving claims by military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan, other troops and military formations, and citizens undergoing military training, if the defendant is a military command or military unit, with the exception of cases under the jurisdiction of other specialized courts.

If a military court has not been established on the territory of the relevant administrative-territorial unit, administrative cases referred to its jurisdiction are considered by specialized district and equivalent administrative courts in accordance with the procedure established by this Code.

The analysis showed that most of the claims submitted to the courts were accepted in compliance with the rules of jurisdiction and did not cause any difficulties for the courts.

At the same time, if there is a military court in the region, questions arise about the correct determination of the jurisdiction of cases on claims for the appointment of EHRs.

Thus, the TJV is assigned to active military personnel and the jurisdiction of disputes over them is attributed to the competence of military courts. Whereas EHRs are appointed upon the dismissal of a serviceman and in connection with the loss of the status of one of the parties to the dispute, special jurisdiction no longer applies.

Based on the stated practice of the courts, we note that the correct definition of jurisdiction is important due to the constitutional norm and its observance in administrative cases must be ensured in accordance with articles 102, 103 of the CPC.

Procedure of the case proceedings

According to the provisions of Articles 146, 148 of the CPC, an administrative case is considered and resolved within a reasonable time, but not more than three months from the date of filing a claim.

The trial is conducted according to the rules of the CPC, with the exception of the specifics established by Article 147 of the CPC. The court, with the consent of the parties, has the right to consider the administrative case in written proceedings within a reasonable time, but not more than three months from the date of filing the claim.

After the registration of the claim, at the stage of the preliminary hearing and trial, the court, as part of the active role of the court, provides assistance in shaping the correct legal position of the plaintiffs.

Basically, the cases of this category were considered by the courts of the republic in compliance with the above requirements.

The circle of persons involved in the case

According to article 26 of the CPC, the participants in the administrative process are the plaintiff, the defendant, the person concerned and the prosecutor.

At the same time, in housing disputes, by virtue of the provisions of article 31 of the CPC, the prosecutor, as a rule, does not participate.

The circle of persons involved in the case is determined by the plaintiff when filing a claim with the court. The persons who have the right to file a claim in court are specified in articles 67-68 of the Law.

In a preliminary hearing, the court determines the circle of persons whose rights, freedoms or legitimate interests may be affected by an administrative act, administrative action (inaction), and subsequently they are involved as interested persons in accordance with article

The analysis showed that according to the claims of military personnel, law enforcement officers and the CDF related to payments of housing and communal services, the relevant territorial administrative body acts as defendants, under which housing commissions have been established that have issued decisions (military units, institutions of the CUIS, DP, line departments, security services, etc.). If necessary, it is involved as the person concerned is a higher government agency (Committee, Ministry).

According to the claims of citizens, the akim of the administrative-territorial unit and/or the housing and communal services department, the housing relations department are involved in the MIO as a defendant.

According to subparagraph 12) of paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Law "On Local Public Administration and Self-Government in the Republic of Kazakhstan", the district (city of regional significance) akimat, in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, organizes the construction of communal housing and its distribution.

By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 77 of the Law, a dwelling from a communal housing stock or a dwelling rented by a local executive body from a private housing stock is provided by decision of the local executive body at the applicant's place of residence on the basis of a decision of the housing commission.

Housing commissions of the MIO, which operate on a permanent basis, are established under the MIO. The authorized body is the housing ministry providing housing.

It is necessary to correctly identify the defendants in each specific case, based on the subject matter and grounds of the plaintiff's claim, the defendant's objections and the laws to be applied, the legal status, and the powers of authorized bodies.

When suing an improper defendant in court in accordance with articles 16, 116 of the CPC, in order to avoid red tape in the dispute, the plaintiff should explain the procedure for replacing the improper defendant with the appropriate one in accordance with Article 29 of the CPC.

Based on the practice of local courts, it follows that there is no need to involve members of housing commissions as defendants.

The decision to satisfy the claim is executed by the administrative body, the akim or the Housing and Communal Services Department, there are no difficulties or problematic issues with the execution of the decisions that have entered into force.

Evidence and proof

Despite the fact that, by virtue of article 129 of the CPC, the burden of proof for contesting claims lies with the administrative body, the body/housing commission has only the data that is in the information exchange systems between government agencies. M&E, when making decisions, as a rule, does not require additional documents from waiting lists.

At the same time, the nature of evidence in housing disputes requires the provision of evidence, information about which is protected by law or can only be provided by the plaintiff due to its content (mortgage agreements, certificates from banks, certificates from work, studies, service records) or are personal (about the composition of the family).

Thus, as evidence: a) for claims challenging the decisions of the housing commission of the Ministry of Regional Development on exclusion from the waiting list, the plaintiffs may submit - documents on assignment to the waiting list category (service records from personnel management departments, certificates from the place of employment of civil servants, disability certificates, birth certificates for all children, marriage divorce certificates, certificates of registered property rights for all family members, etc.), as evidence of residence (non-departure), the plaintiffs provide certificates from the place of study, from the place of work, witness statements, reports (characteristics) of district police inspectors.

Deadlines for filing a claim (the practice of restoring deadlines)

The time limits for filing a claim are provided for in Chapter 20 of the APPC, in particular, they are regulated by Article 136 of the APPC.

As a general rule, the deadline for filing a claim that has been missed for a valid reason can be restored by the court according to the rules of the CPC. The reasons for missing the deadline for filing a claim in court and their significance for the proper resolution of an administrative case are clarified by the court in a preliminary hearing.

Missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit without a valid reason, as well as the inability to restore the missed deadline for filing a lawsuit, are grounds for returning the claim.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that, by virtue of the fifth part of Article 136 of the CPC, a person who did not participate in the administrative procedure, whose rights, freedoms and legitimate interests are affected by the administrative act, has the right to file a lawsuit within one month from the day when the person learned or could have learned about the adoption of the administrative act, but no later than one month. one year from the date of its adoption.

Application of procedural coercion measures

In the event of a violation of the norms of procedural legislation, when considering a case, procedural coercion measures are applied in accordance with Chapter 18 of the CPC.

In accordance with article 127 of the CPC, the court has the right to impose a monetary penalty on a person who abuses procedural rights or fails to perform procedural duties, including in cases of presenting evidence, executing orders in violation of the time limit set by the court without valid reasons, if this led to a delay in the consideration of an administrative case, for each action (inaction) in the amount of ten monthly calculation indices.

For failure to comply with a requirement or a court request, failure to appear in court of a person participating in an administrative case, late notification of the court, late submission of a review, disobedience to the orders of the presiding judge, violation of the rules established in court, as well as other actions (inaction) clearly indicating disrespect for the court and (or) the judge, the court has the right to impose a monetary penalty in the amount of twenty monthly calculation indices.

For failure to comply with a court decision, a court ruling approving an agreement between the parties on reconciliation, mediation, or dispute settlement through a participatory procedure, the court imposes a monetary penalty on the defendant in the amount of fifty monthly calculation indices, indicating in the same judicial act a period not exceeding one month during which it is to be enforced.

During the analyzed period, the courts have developed the practice of applying a measure of procedural coercion in the form of imposing a monetary penalty.

In this category of disputes, monetary penalties are most often imposed on the defendants for the following reasons:

late provision of feedback;

incomplete or incomplete provision of administrative case materials;

failure to appear (or fail to connect online) at a court hearing without a valid reason.

Abbreviations used:

APPC – Administrative Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

CPC – Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

NP VS – Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

IS – information system

SCAD VS – Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

SCAD or collegium – judicial collegium for administrative cases

SMAS – specialized interdistrict Administrative Court

Ministry of Internal Affairs – Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Ministry of Defense – Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Kazakhstan

KNB – National Security Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan

GP – General Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Emergency Department – Department of Emergency Situations

CDF – Special government agencies

DP – Police Department

TJV - current housing payments

EZHV - one-time housing payments

GZHF - state housing fund

MIO – local executive bodies

The main regulatory legal acts regulating housing disputes are:

·        The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

· APPC;

· GC;

· GPC;

· The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Housing Relations" (hereinafter – the Law on Housing Relations);

· The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On State Property" (hereinafter – the Law on State Property);

· The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Military Service and the status of military personnel" (hereinafter - the Law on Military Service);

· The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Law Enforcement Service" (hereinafter – the Law on Law Enforcement Agencies);

· The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Legal Acts" (hereinafter - the Law on Legal Acts);

· NP VS "On judicial practice of applying legislation on the privatization of residential premises from the State housing stock by citizens" dated July 18, 1997 No. 9;

as well as subordinate regulatory legal acts:

·        Rules for providing service housing for military personnel, calculating the size, assignment, recalculation, Implementation, Termination, suspension and resumption of housing payments, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 49 dated February 12, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as Rules No. 49);

·        Rules for Monetary compensation, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 50 dated February 12, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as Rules No. 50);

·        Rules for providing official housing for employees of internal affairs bodies, calculating the amount, appointment, recalculation, implementation, termination, suspension and resumption of housing payments, as well as categories of positions of employees of internal affairs bodies eligible to receive housing payments, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated August 5, 2021 No. 524 (hereinafter referred to as Rules No. 524);

·        Rules for the privatization of public housing stock approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 2, 2013 No. 673 (hereinafter referred to as Rules No. 673);

·        The rules for the provision of public services "Registration and priority, as well as the adoption by local executive bodies of a decision on the provision of housing to citizens in need of housing from the state housing stock or housing rented by a local executive body in a private housing stock", approved by the order of the Acting Minister of Industry and Infrastructural Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated August 13, 2021. No. 441;

·        Rules for the transfer of state property assigned to state-owned legal entities from one type of state property to another, approved by Order No. 85 of the Minister of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 26, 2023;

·        The rules for registration of citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan in need of housing from the state housing stock or housing rented by a local executive body in a private housing stock, approved by Order No. 168 of the Minister of Industry and Construction of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 27, 2023.

If an international treaty ratified by the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes rules other than those provided for by the Law on Housing Relations, the rules of the international treaty shall apply.

According to articles 10 and 12 of the Law on Legal Acts, codes have greater legal force than laws; if there are contradictions in the norms of normative legal acts of different levels, the norms of a higher-level act apply.

As a general rule, provided for in Article 4 of the Civil Code, Article 43 of the Law on Legal Acts, regulatory legal acts apply to relations that have arisen after their entry into force.

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