Exemption from administrative liability Upon expiration of the limitation period for bringing to administrative responsibility, proceedings on an administrative offense case cannot be initiated, and what has been initiated is subject to termination.
By the resolution of the State Inspector of the KSU "Department for Control over the Use and Protection of Lands of the City of Almaty" (hereinafter referred to as the Department, state body) dated October 25, 2017, K. was brought to administrative responsibility under Article 136 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code) and an administrative penalty in the form of a fine was imposed on her under this article. in the amount of 75 monthly calculation indices, which is 170,175 tenge. By the resolution of the specialized interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty dated November 13, 2017, the resolution of the state body was left unchanged. The case was not reviewed on appeal. In his submission, the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan proposes to review the cassation acts issued in the case due to a violation of uniformity in the interpretation and application of legal norms by the courts. According to the protocol and the resolution on an administrative offense dated October 25, 2017, during the survey of a land plot located at the address: Almaty city, Nauryzbay district, md.
Exemption from administrative liability Upon expiration of the limitation period for bringing to administrative responsibility, proceedings on an administrative offense case cannot be initiated, and what has been initiated is subject to termination.
Darkhan, house 45, cadastral number 20-322-026-038, it was established that K. without title documents for the land, he uses a land plot of 0.0119 hectares adjacent to his land plot from the street by installing a capital fence made of split blocks. This circumstance was a violation of paragraph 10 of Article 43 and subparagraph 8) of paragraph 1 of Article 65 of the Land Code and Article 136 of the Administrative Code. The court, rejecting K.'s complaint, Referring to the decision of the state inspector, he cited the provisions of article 164-1 of the Land Code as justification, and also pointed out that the arguments of her complaint had not been confirmed and had not been proven by the applicant. However, the court's conclusions do not comply with the law and the circumstances relevant to the case. As follows from the case file, in July 2014, the Almaty City Land Management Department carried out land management work on the site. It has been established that the actual land area is 0.1059 ha, which is 0.0119 ha more than the required area. In this regard, on October 27, 2014, the owner was issued a new act for the right of private ownership of a land plot with modified boundaries. However, on October 18, 2004, K. was issued a certificate of private ownership of a land plot of 0.0940 hectares. According to the scheme of the site, the imputed area of capture entered the boundaries of this land plot. The use of the land was carried out without changing the boundaries. Thus, initially, during the registration of identification documents, errors were made in measuring the total area of the land plot. According to part 1 of Article 62 of the Administrative Code, a person is not subject to administrative liability after two months from the date of the commission of an administrative offense. By virtue of part 3 of Article 62 of the Administrative Code, in case of a continuing administrative offense, a person is not subject to administrative liability after two months from the date of detection of the administrative offense. The offense imputed to K. is a continuing one. However, as follows from the case file, the explanatory note of the Almaty city branch of the RSE "NPTsem" on the discrepancy between the borders was drawn up on October 9, 2014. The administrative offense case was initiated on October 25, 2017, that is, two months after the date of the discovery of the administrative offense. Consequently, the arguments of the notion of the expiration of the limitation period for bringing K. to administrative responsibility deserve attention. In accordance with subparagraph 5) of part 1 of Article 741 of the Administrative Code, proceedings on an administrative offense cannot be initiated, and those initiated are subject to termination upon expiration of the statute of limitations for administrative liability. In such circumstances, the decision of the authorized body and the court are subject to cancellation with the termination of proceedings in the case of an administrative offense due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing K. to administrative responsibility. The adopted resolution violates the uniformity in the interpretation and application of legal norms by the courts, which, in accordance with subparagraph 3) of part 5 of Article 851 of the Administrative Code, entails their revision. The specialized judicial Board of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the State Inspector for Control over the use and protection of land and the court of first instance. The proceedings in the case of an administrative offense against K. were terminated after the expiration of the statute of limitations for administrative liability. The submission of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan is satisfied.
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
