Appeals against actions (omissions) Cooperative of apartment owners Consumer Cooperative

             In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the CPC, when resolving cases in civil proceedings, the court must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, this Code, and other regulatory legal acts.

When considering cases arising from housing legal relations concerning the appeal of actions (omissions) It should be borne in mind that the general procedure for considering applications for appealing actions (omissions) is provided for in Chapter 29 of the current CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which regulates proceedings in cases of challenging decisions and actions (or omissions) of state authorities, local governments, public associations, organizations, officials and civil servants..

According to Part 1 of Article 292 of the CPC, a citizen and a legal entity have the right to challenge the decision, actions (inaction) of a state body, local government body, public association, organization, official, civil servant in court.

In cases where the law establishes the consideration of an application by a higher authority, organization, official, commissions or the Ombudsman, the application of a citizen and a legal entity is submitted to the court after observing such an application procedure.

In accordance with Parts 2,3 of art.292 of the CPC, applications under the rules of this chapter in cases of appeal against actions (inaction) of the body (official) conducting proceedings on an administrative offense are not subject to consideration in court.

The refusal of permission to leave the Republic of Kazakhstan abroad on the grounds that the applicant is aware of information constituting state secrets is disputed in the relevant district and equivalent court at the location of the body that made the decision to leave the request for departure without satisfaction.

Failure to provide timely information about the members of the cooperative was found by the court to be unlawful and unlawful

             According to paragraph 6 of Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (DAL), consumer rights protection is provided by the means provided for by this Code or other legislative acts.

Each consumer has, in particular, the right to freely conclude contracts for the purchase of goods, the use of works and services; proper quality and safety of goods (works, services); complete and reliable information about goods (works, services).

By virtue of clauses 1, 2 of Article 8 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 12, 2007 No. 221 "On the Procedure for Considering Appeals from Individuals and Legal Entities" (hereinafter referred to as the Law), an appeal from an individual and (or) a legal entity, which does not require receiving information from other entities, officials or on-site verification. It is considered within fifteen calendar days from the date of receipt to the subject, official.

An appeal from an individual and (or) a legal entity, which requires receiving information from other entities, officials or an on-site inspection, is considered and a decision is made on it within thirty calendar days from the date of receipt by the entity, official.

In cases where additional examination or verification is necessary, the review period is extended by no more than thirty calendar days, which is notified to the applicant within three calendar days from the date of the extension of the review period.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 9 of the Law, it is stipulated that, based on the results of consideration of appeals, one of the following decisions is made::

1) full or partial satisfaction of the request;

2) the refusal to satisfy the request with the justification for making such a decision;

3) on giving an explanation on the merits of the appeal;

4) termination of consideration of the appeal.    

For example: S.A. Golubeva appealed to the court, challenging the inaction of the chairman of the Board of the Vityaz-Service Board, D.N. Beisenbayeva, arguing that her written appeal dated February 24, 2016, about not providing information about the cooperative's members, as well as for what purpose residents who are not members of the cooperative are invited to the meeting of the cooperative's members, It was left unanswered, and the information was not provided within the time limit prescribed by law.

Since the failure to provide a response and information to the appeal resulted in a violation of civil rights, freedoms and legally protected interests of Golubeva S.A., namely, obtaining the requested information on the appeals, which is a violation of the constitutional rights of a citizen directly provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 18 of the Constitution, by the decision of the Ekibastuz City Court of Pavlodar region dated June 23, 2016 Golubeva's claim S.A. was satisfied.

The Court ordered the Chairman of the Committee to eliminate the violations in full and restore the violated rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the applicant within one month after the entry into force of the decision.

             Apartment owners in an apartment building, regardless of whether they participate in the management of a cooperative of apartment owners or not, are required to take a proportionate monetary contribution to the maintenance of those parts of the house that are jointly owned (entrances, stairs, elevators, roofs, attics, basements, non-residential or communal engineering systems and equipment, land land, including landscaping elements and other common property).

             According to Article 31 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Housing Relations", the common property of the condominium belongs to the owners of the premises (apartments) on the right of common shared ownership.

The land plot attached to an apartment building belongs to the owners of the premises (apartments) on the right of common shared ownership or on the right of common land use. The share of each owner of the premises (other rightholder) in the common property is inseparable from the individual (separate) ownership (other proprietary right) of the premises belonging to him.

The size of the share is determined by the ratio of the useful areas of residential and (or) non-residential premises that are individually (separately) owned (other proprietary rights) to the sum of the useful areas of all residential and non-residential premises located in this condominium facility.

Such a share cannot be allocated in kind. In accordance with paragraphs 1.2 of Article 35, paragraph 2 of Article 37, paragraph 1 of Article 50 of this Law, the owners of premises (apartments) bear the obligations provided for by this Law and other laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The owners of premises (apartments) are obliged to promote the safety and safe operation of common property and premises in individual (separate) ownership.

Expenses related to those parts of the common property that are exclusively related to the use of non-residential premises are borne by the owners of such premises. The amount of expenses for the maintenance of the common property is set in proportion to the share of the owner of the premises (apartment) in the common property, unless otherwise provided by the agreement of the owners. The owners of the premises (apartments) are required to contribute to the maintenance costs of the common property of the condominium facility.

Expenses for the maintenance of the common property of the condominium facility are made monthly. The amount of expenses for the maintenance of the common property of the condominium facility is set in proportion to the share of the owner of the premises (apartment) in the common property.

Additional expenses that are not related to the maintenance of the common property of the condominium may not be imposed on the owners of the premises (apartments) without their written consent.

Alieva A.Zh. appealed to the court with a claim to KSK "Burabai" for mutual settlement by reducing the amount owed to KSK by 20,000 tenge, arguing that she, together with other residents of the house, spent money on repairing the roof of the house.

Due to the failure of the KSK to fulfill its duties for the maintenance of the house, which includes the repair of the roof, the tenants of the house incurred these costs themselves by concluding a repair contract, collecting the amount of 210,000 tenge from each apartment entrance.

Alieva A.Zh. as a result of KSK's inaction, she spent her money on roof repairs in the amount of 20,000 tenge.

By the decision of the Kokshetau City Court of June 22, 2016, Alieva A.Zh. the claim was dismissed.

Rejecting the claim, the court proceeded from the fact that the legislation provides for the obligation of apartment owners in an apartment building, regardless of whether they participate in the management of a cooperative of apartment owners or not, to take a proportionate monetary contribution to the maintenance of those parts of the house that are jointly owned (entrances, stairs, elevators, roofs, attics, basements, non-residential or communal engineering systems and equipment, land, including landscaping elements and other common property).

There is no data on the consideration of the case by higher courts, in this regard, we believe that when resolving the dispute, it was necessary to take into account the duties set out in the Charter of this CCC.

If the maintenance and repair of the roof are the responsibilities of this KSK, and it was carried out by the residents themselves, then it would be legitimate to reduce the amount of debt owed by Alieva A.Zh.

Damage caused by unlawful actions (inaction) to property or non-property benefits and rights of citizens and legal entities is subject to compensation by the person who caused the damage in full.

             Gilyazeva Z.K. and Bisenov S.G. filed a lawsuit against the Yunost consumer cooperative of apartment owners for compensation for material damage, moral damage and court costs, arguing that they are the owners of an apartment located on the fifth floor of an apartment building.

The reason for the flooding was the improper repair of the roof of their house. They have repeatedly contacted the defendant with written statements, but the PKSK does not repair the roof and its representatives do not appear to sign acts on flooding the apartment. The plaintiffs confirmed their arguments about the flooding of the apartment with a commission act signed by other residents of the building, photographs, a specialist's opinion, and cash receipts for appraiser services.

According to clause 2.1 of the agreement between PKSK Yunost and Gilyazeva Z.K. dated November 5, 2010, PKSK undertakes to ensure the maintenance of those parts of the house that are not in separate (individual) ownership (entrances, stairs, elevators, roofs, attics, basements, non-apartment or communal systems and equipment, land, including elements of landscaping and other common property) and belongs to the owners of the premises on the rights of common indivisible property and within the limits of available funds.

Based on the fact that the apartment building where the plaintiffs live is serviced by the Yunost Housing and Communal Services Complex, which, according to the Charter, is required to repair the roof, the Kostanay City Court, by a decision dated August 3, 2016, guided by Articles 951,952 of the Civil Code and Articles 109, 113 of the CPC, lawfully partially satisfied the claim.

             The company managing the residential complex does not have the right to turn off the electricity in the condominium apartment

             In accordance with Article 50 of the "Rules for the Use of Electric Energy", approved by the Order of the Minister of Energy of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated February 25, 2015 No. 143, only the energy supply organization is given the right to completely or partially stop the supply of electricity after warning the consumer within the time limits established by these rules.

According to Clause 1 of Article 488 of the Civil Code, energy is paid for the amount of energy actually received by the subscriber, determined in accordance with energy accounting data, unless otherwise provided by legislative acts or agreement of the parties.

Idrisova A.K. filed a lawsuit against PC Arystan Plus to declare her actions illegal, oblige her to connect to the electricity supply, recover moral damage, exclude debts for electricity consumption, exclude debts for the intercom, arguing that on May 19, 2016, in her apartment, PC Arystan Plus was disconnected. power supply.

The chairman of the KSK refused to draw up an act on the power outage in the apartment, the KSK did not provide an answer to her objection, but at the same time, the chairman of the PK independently decided to disconnect the apartment from the power supply. According to paragraph 1 of Article 42-1, meetings of owners of premises (apartments) consider and make decisions on issues related to the management and maintenance of the condominium facility. The decision of the meeting of owners of premises (apartments) is formalized by the protocol and should not contradict the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

According to paragraphs 15-1) of Article 2 of the Law "On Housing Relations", the concept of expenses for the maintenance of common property is given. "Expenses for the maintenance of the common property of a condominium facility are the mandatory amount of expenses incurred by the owners of premises (apartments) through monthly contributions established by a decision of the general meeting for the operation and repair of the common property of a condominium facility, maintenance of a land plot, for the purchase, installation, operation and verification of communal metering devices for utilities, payment for utilities, consumed services, consumed for the maintenance of the common property of the condominium facility, as well as to accumulate money for the upcoming major repairs of the common property of the condominium facility or its individual types."

In addition, according to paragraphs 4, 18 of the order of the Acting Minister of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 26, 2015 No. 246, the following expenses are included for the maintenance of the common property of the condominium facility: for the operation and repair of the common property of the condominium facility; for the maintenance of the land; for the purchase, installation, operation and verification of communal metering devices services; to pay for utilities consumed for the maintenance of the common property of the condominium facility; accumulation for upcoming major repairs.

Expenses under contracts with service providers for cold and hot water supply, sanitation, electricity, heating (heat supply) for the maintenance of the common property of the condominium facility are included in the total maintenance costs of the condominium facility. According to paragraph 3 of Article 42 of the Air Defense System "On Housing Relations", the management body of a condominium facility in this condominium facility is prohibited from carrying out service and other activities unrelated to the condominium facility.

According to the minutes of the general meeting of residents, it was decided to re-elect the management company with the determination of the payment rate for the maintenance and maintenance of an apartment building in the amount of 65 tenge per square meter.m. No other decision was made by the general meeting to pay separately for common household needs. According to paragraph 1, Article 50 of the 3rd Law "On Housing Relations", additional expenses not related to the maintenance of the common property of the condominium facility cannot be imposed on the owners of the premises (apartments) without their written consent.

By the decision of the district court no.2 Auezovsky district, Almaty, dated August 12, 2016, the claim of Idrisova A.K. for recognition of illegal actions, the obligation to connect to the electricity supply, recovery of moral damage, exclusion of arrears for electricity consumption and for the intercom, was partially satisfied and it was decided to recognize the illegal actions of PC "Arystan plus" to turn off electricity in her apartment, to recover from PC "Arystan plus" in favor of Idrisova A.K. for compensation of moral damage caused 15,000 tenge.

The rest of the claim was denied, and the court costs were attributed to the defendant. We believe that the court correctly justified the decision by the fact that the plaintiff has no arrears for electricity in AlmatyEnergoSbyt JSC, since all payments were made on time, recognized the actions of Arystan Plus PC to turn off electricity in the apartment as illegal and partially satisfied the claim in terms of compensation for moral damage.

At the same time, he reasonably rejected the claims regarding the connection of the apartment to the electricity supply, since at the time of the decision, the apartment was already connected by the defendant, and also reasonably refused to satisfy the requirements for the obligation of PC Arystan Plus to exclude the accrued arrears for the intercom, since the plaintiff did not prove the absence of an intercom in her apartment.

The decision of the Stepnogorsk city Court of the Akmola region of April 1, 2016 similarly resolved the issue of the claim of Chernenko E.V. to the Cooperative of apartment owners "Central-A" on recognition of actions on power outage illegal and recovery of moral damage.

Issues related to the election of the head and members of the executive, supervisory and other bodies of the consumer cooperative, termination of their powers, hearing reports on their activities, approval of annual financial statements may be considered by the members of the cooperative exclusively at general meetings.

             In accordance with Articles 1,4 of the Law "On Consumer Cooperatives" (hereinafter referred to as the Law), a consumer cooperative is a voluntary association of citizens based on membership to meet the material and other needs of participants, carried out by combining its members with property (share) contributions.

A consumer cooperative is created at the expense of property (share) contributions to perform certain functions related to satisfying the interests of its members.

According to part 3 of art.6, part 1 of art.17 of the Law, the subject and objectives of the consumer cooperative are determined by its constituent documents.

The governing bodies of the consumer cooperative are:

1) the supreme body is the General Assembly;

2) the executive body is the Management Board (Chairman);

3) the control body is the audit Commission (auditor).

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 18 of the Law, the general meeting of a consumer cooperative is its highest body and is authorized to resolve all issues related to its activities.

At the same time, regular or extraordinary general meetings may be convened, which are recognized as valid if more than half of all members of the consumer cooperative are present at them. The decision of the general meeting is considered adopted if more than half of the members present at the meeting voted for it.

At the same time, each member of the consumer cooperative has one vote when making decisions at the general meeting, regardless of the size of his share in the property of the consumer cooperative.

The exclusive competence of the general meeting of cooperative members according to Part 2 of Article 19 of the Law includes:

- amendments and additions to the charter of the consumer cooperative, including changes in the amount of the property (share) contribution, location and name, or approval of the charter in a new version;

- determination of the main activities of the consumer cooperative; - election of the head and members of the executive, supervisory and other bodies of the consumer cooperative, termination of their powers, hearing reports on their activities, determining the amount of funds for their maintenance;

- exclusion of members of the consumer cooperative from the cooperative; - approval of internal rules, procedures for their adoption and other documents regulating the internal activities of the consumer cooperative;

- resolving issues related to the establishment of an association (union) of consumer cooperatives, joining the association (union) and leaving it;

- approval of the annual financial statements and the report of the audit commission (auditor) of the consumer cooperative;

- the procedure for covering losses incurred by the consumer cooperative;

- determination of the types and procedure for the formation and expenditure of funds of the consumer cooperative;

- alienation of immovable property of a consumer cooperative, the value of which exceeds the value determined by the charter;

- election of the chairman and members of the liquidation commission and approval of the liquidation balance sheet.

In accordance with Part 4 of Article 18 of the Law, a decision of the general meeting of a consumer cooperative taken in violation of the procedure for holding a general meeting and making decisions established by this Law, the charter or rules and other documents regulating the internal activities of a consumer cooperative, as well as a decision of the general meeting that contradicts this Law or the charter, including Any violation of the rights of members of a consumer cooperative may be declared invalid by a court in whole or in part upon application by members of the consumer cooperative.

It follows from the literal meaning of the above-mentioned norms that the issues of electing the head and members of the executive, supervisory and other bodies of the consumer cooperative, termination of their powers, hearing reports on their activities, approval of annual financial statements can be considered by the members of the cooperative exclusively at general meetings.

Koblanov M.F. filed a lawsuit against the defendant, the PC cooperative of garage owners "Zig-ZagUK" (hereinafter PCSG "Zig-ZagUK"), to invalidate the minutes of the meeting and the decisions taken at it, to prohibit actions on behalf of the cooperative, to use, own and dispose of the property of the cooperative, arguing that he, owning garage box No. 42, he is a member of the garage cooperative PKSG "Zig-ZagUK".

In June 2015, announcements were posted on the walls of garages about holding a reporting and election meeting on June 22, 2015 with the agenda: financial report of the accounting department; report of the audit commission; election of the chairman.

However, this meeting did not take place due to the lack of a quorum, and in January 2016, he became aware that Udalova L.A. considered this protocol and the decisions taken at it illegal by the decision of the general meeting of July 26, 2015.

Subsequently, having supplemented the claims, he finally asked to invalidate the minutes of the meeting No. 1 dated July 26, 2015 and the decisions taken at it, the employment contract dated July 01, 2015, to prohibit L.A. Udalova from carrying out the activities of the chairman of the PKSG Zig-ZagUK, acting on behalf of the cooperative, using, owning and disposing of its property..

By the decision of the Ust-Kamenogorsk City Court of May 26, 2016, the claim of Koblanov M.F. was satisfied.

During the consideration of the case by the court, it was established that in fact the general meeting of the cooperative members was not held on July 26, 2015, the minutes of the meeting were drawn up taking into account the violations identified by the staff of the registering authority, while its content completely repeats the content of the minutes of the general meeting of the cooperative members dated July 12, 2015.

In this regard, the court reasonably concluded that the protocol of July 26, 2015 and the decisions taken on it cannot be considered legitimate, since the procedure established by law and the Charter for holding a general meeting and making decisions by the executive body of the cooperative has not been observed.

Considering the plaintiff's claims for invalidation of the employment contract concluded on July 01, 2015 between PKSG Zig-Zag UK and Udalova L.A., the court recognized that the conclusion of contracts does not fall within the competence of the cooperative's board, which is confirmed by paragraph 5.4 of the Charter.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claims about the illegality of the employment contract concluded with her are also subject to satisfaction, since as of July 01, 2015, no decision had been taken by the general meeting on this issue, and the employment contract was signed by unauthorized persons.

The obligation must be performed properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation and the requirements of the legislation.

             KSP/SKIF filed a lawsuit against SauranGroup LLP to appeal the actions, arguing that the residents living at No. 9 Tashenova Lane, Astana, at the general meeting on June 21, 2016, decided to switch to service at SauranGroup LLP, but the defendant was unlawfully charging expenses since June 08, 2016.

During the court session, it was established that the residents of this house on June 08, 2016 at the general meeting decided to abandon the services of KSK SKIF for house maintenance and conclude an agreement with SauranGroup LLP. The reason for the termination of the contract with the plaintiff was the poor quality of service at home.

After accepting the house, the defendant conducted an expert examination, which indicates a lot of wear throughout the apartment building.

The parties agreed to transfer the available documentation and engineering networks on June 21, 2016, on the same day, the act accepted and transferred the documentation and inventory, after which the maintenance of the house passed to the defendant.

Representatives of KSP/SKIF were not present at the meeting on June 08, 2016 and were unaware of the decision taken by the tenants to withdraw from and replace the service organization, so they continued to service the apartment building and considered their actions to charge funds for the maintenance of the house legitimate.

They were officially notified by the defendant of the transfer of rights only on June 15, 2016, therefore, from June 16, 2016, the defendant lawfully has to make an accrual of funds.

Based on the requirements of Article 272 of the Civil Code, the decision of the specialized interdistrict court of Astana dated October 12, 2016 partially satisfied the claim and decided to recognize the actions of "Saurangroup" LLP to charge residents illegal, oblige "Saurangroup" LLP to charge funds for house maintenance only from June 16, 2016.

The expiration of the limitation period before the filing of a claim is the basis for the court's decision to dismiss the claim.

             Demidenko E.I. appealed to the court with a lawsuit against KSK "Zhuldyz-Alga" to invalidate the minutes of the general meeting of the cooperative of apartment owners of a multi-storey building, arguing that the minutes of the general meeting of owners of premises should contain signatures of all those present, since every vote counts in the voting.

There is no signature of the owners in the protocol dated June 25, 2009. The Chairman and the Secretary are not apartment owners. By the decision of the Uralsk Court No. 2 dated May 4, 2016, Demidenko E.I. the claim was denied.

The court found that the house number 11, on the streetZhukov, in Uralsk, switched to the service of KSK "Zhuldyz-Alga" on May 01, 2009 by decision of the general meeting of residents dated June 25, 2009. From May 01, 2009 to the present, the specified house is under maintenance of this KSK. By virtue of paragraph 5 of art.42-1 of the Law "On Housing Relations", a meeting of owners of premises (apartments) is valid if at least two thirds of the total number of owners of premises (apartments) are present.

If it is impossible to ensure a quorum during the meeting of the owners of the premises (apartments), a written survey is conducted. Each owner of a room (apartment) has one vote when voting. If the owner owns several rooms (apartments), he has the appropriate number of votes.

The decision is binding on all owners of premises (apartments) and is a document for the consideration of disputes and other issues in courts and other government agencies as an expression of the will of the owners of premises (apartments), and also serves as the basis for calculating housing assistance.

In accordance with Article 50 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Housing Relations", apartment owners are required to participate in the total costs of maintaining and using common property in proportion to their share. Mandatory payments are made monthly, unless the Charter provides otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff, as the owner of the apartment, must participate in all housing costs.

According to Article 178 of the Civil Code, paragraph 3 of Article 179 of the Civil Code defines a total limitation period of three years. The expiration of the limitation period before the filing of a claim is the basis for the court's decision to dismiss the claim. In connection with the above, the court found that the plaintiff knew about the existence of the minutes of the general meeting.

However, in a timely manner, within three years, she did not take measures to appeal the aforementioned actions and decisions of the assembly in court. According to the defendant's statement on the application of the statute of limitations, these circumstances served as the basis for the decision to dismiss the claim.

A member of the KSC has the right to receive full information about the activities of the KSC, including minutes of meetings, accounting and other information.

Petrushin O.A. appealed to the court with a claim to the PKSK "72 quarter" for the recovery of documents, arguing that he is the owner of non-residential premises at the address Semey, 72 block, 21, sq.20. The defendant performs the management functions of this residential building.

On August 5, 2016, he became aware that the heating systems had been flushed and crimped in their house at the initiative of the PKSK.

Due to a number of circumstances, he considered that the work was poorly done. He tried to draw the attention of the PKSK management to the inadequate quality, but they did not agree with his oral arguments.

In order to receive clarifications from outside experts and to understand the quality of the work performed, I contacted the defendant in writing with a request to provide copies of the relevant documents, but was refused.

According to Articles 14 and c) of Article 16 of the Charter of the PKSK "72 quarter", all owners of apartments located in the buildings on the basis of which the KSK was created have the right to be members of the KSK. A member of the KSC has the right to receive full information about the activities of the KSC, including minutes of meetings, accounting and other information.

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 34 of the Law "On Housing Relations", all owners of premises (apartments) participating in a condominium have equal rights to manage common property.

Since plaintiff Petrushin O.A. is the owner of a non-residential building located in an apartment building, the defendant's refusal to provide the plaintiff with copies of documents related to the financial and economic activities of PKSK 72 Quarter cannot be considered legitimate.

On August 5, 2016, he became aware that the heating systems had been flushed and crimped in their house at the initiative of the PKSK.

Due to a number of circumstances, he considered that the work was poorly done. He tried to draw the attention of the PKSK management to the inadequate quality, but they did not agree with his oral arguments.

In order to receive clarifications from outside experts and to understand the quality of the work performed, I contacted the defendant in writing with a request to provide copies of the relevant documents, but was refused.

According to Articles 14 and c) of Article 16 of the Charter of the PKSK "72 quarter", all owners of apartments located in the buildings on the basis of which the KSK was created have the right to be members of the KSK. A member of the KSC has the right to receive full information about the activities of the KSC, including minutes of meetings, accounting and other information.

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 34 of the Law "On Housing Relations", all owners of premises (apartments) participating in a condominium have equal rights to manage common property.

Since plaintiff Petrushin O.A. is the owner of a non-residential building located in an apartment building, the defendant's refusal to provide the plaintiff with copies of documents related to the financial and economic activities of PKSK 72 Quarter cannot be considered legitimate.

In this regard, by the decision of the Semey City Court of October 5, 2016, the claim of Petrushin O.A. was partially satisfied and it was decided to recognize as illegal the refusal of PKSK "72 quarter" to provide Petrushin O.A. with a copy of the contract for the provision of services for flushing and crimping the heating system, a copy of the invoice dated 07/19/2016 on payment for services to the contractor, a copy of the act to take readings of cold water consumption during flushing and crimping of the heating system for 2016, a copy of the invoice for the payment of cold water consumption in the house, to refuse to satisfy the rest of the claim.

             Regulatory legal framework

The main legislative acts regulating relations related to the appeal of actions (omissions) KSK (KSK PC) are:

The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

The Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Housing Relations",

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On State Property",

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On the Cooperative of Apartment Owners (KSK) and other Forms of Condominium Management",

The Law "On Non-profit Organizations",

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 12, 2007 No. 221 "On the procedure for considering appeals from individuals and legal entities",

Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On approval of the Rules for the privatization of public housing" dated 07/02/2013. Normative Resolutions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On the practice of applying legislation on the privatization of residential premises by citizens" No. 9 dated July 18, 1997, "On certain issues of Dispute Resolution related to the protection of property rights to housing" No. 5 dated July 16, 2007, "On certain issues of the application by Courts of the norms of Chapter 27 of the Civil Procedure Code Republic of Kazakhstan" No. 20 dated December 24, 2010.

 

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