For violation of Public Order and peace of mind, dirty speech, touching, disrespectful attitude in public places

Administrative proceedings submitted to the court by the protocol of the PD of Almaty, APB Medeu ZH.a.Dzhumazhanov No. 257517030004022 No. 7528-25-00-3 in accordance with Part 1 of Article 434 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan for committing petty hooliganism in accordance with Part 1 of Article 434 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "speech in public places, touching individuals and other similar acts that violate public order and the peace of individuals" No. 257517030004022/11491 under consideration.

According to the reasoning of the police officers: Citizen U. E. zh.. On 22.02.2025 at 02:30 in Almaty, Nazarbayeva 124, violated public order and the peace of individuals, did not respect others, spoke in public, and committed an administrative offense provided for by Part 1 of Article 434 of the Administrative Code.

However, we cannot agree with the Protocol No. 257517030004022 of the PD of Almaty, APB Medeu zh. a.Dzhumazhanov submitted to the court for the following reasons,

Thus, article 802 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan states that the basis for initiating a case on an administrative offense is the direct detection of the fact of committing an administrative offense by an authorized official or materials received from law enforcement agencies, as well as other state bodies, local self-government bodies.

However, the reports (reports) of the district police inspector Konusov and SOBR employee R. B. Esdauletov, recorded in the Protocol on administrative offenses, written to the head of the Medeu APB, were not recorded, and the reports of police officers were not translated from Russian into Kazakh with the consent of the person brought to administrative responsibility in accordance with article 738 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

In accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 767 of the administrative code, explanations, testimonies of witnesses of the person against whom the case on an administrative offense is being filed are entered into the protocol on an administrative offense only after its full filling and clarification of the rights and obligations provided for by this code to these persons. In case of non-compliance with these requirements, the explanations of the person, the testimony of a witness, against whom the proceedings are being conducted in the case of an administrative offense, are considered invalid as evidence and cannot be recognized as evidence.

Thus, the actions committed by the authorized person to the management of his departmental regulatory legal act entail the invalidity of the protocol of administrative offenses.

At the same time, we cannot agree with the arguments in the protocol that U. E. J. violated public order and the peace of individuals, did not respect those around him, and spoke dirty in public because U. E. J. On February 22, 2025, at about 02 O'clock in his car, he came to the restaurant at 124 Nazarbayeva street to pick up his brothers in a healthy driver's reten, but when he saw his brothers in front of the cafe, he was taken by police officers, who abused their rights and duties, without explaining their rights to the offenders. There, when U. E. J. asked what was going on, the police officers exchanged insults and rude insults with U. E. J.'s brothers. U. E. ZH. there, he and his brothers were among the police officers, and he called his brothers to calm down.

U. E. zh.was in a position to be responsible for his actions, not drinking alcoholic beverages in accordance with the forensic medical examination.

In addition, there, the district police inspector Konusov recorded everything that happened on his smartphone, and it is not visible that the video was made by U. E. zh. And there are few who have commented as witnesses. T. D. did not comment on the actual offense.

In this regard, dear court, I ask you to recognize that the reports of U.e. Zholdybay, police officers in the materials of the case are not valid and cannot be recognized as evidence, which is evidence.

According to Article 2 of Article 741 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, "proceedings on an administrative offense case shall be terminated on the grounds provided for in subitems 1) and 2) of the first part of this article, both when the absence of an event of an administrative offense or composition of an administrative offense is proved, and when the existence is not proved, as well as in cases where the cause of harm is legal or the action is committed in circumstances that exclude administrative liability in accordance with Chapter 5 of this code".

Based on what I said above, based on Article 741 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

From the court,

· We request the termination of the administrative case in respect of zh.U.E. under Part 1 of Article 434 of the Code of administrative offenses of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

February 27, 2025 7528-25-00-3/11491 with the sitting of the presiding judge of the Specialized Interdistrict court for administrative offenses of Almaty Zhamalbekov R. B., Secretary of the court session Zhangabylova M. G., with the remote participation of the person U. E. zh and the defense lawyer G. S. T., The Code of administrative offenses of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code) 434-for committing an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of Article UE, born on December 25, 1996, place of residence:

Turkestan region, Keles district, akzhar village, I. STR., 41, registration data at the place of residence: Turkestan region, Keles district, Akzhar village, I. STR., 41, place of work: unemployed, identity document: ID card No. 045415223 issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan on December 4, 2019, IIN-961225301539, considering the case of an administrative offense in the state language at an open court session,

On February 22, 2025, at the address: U. E., Almaty, Avenue N., No. 124, in a public place, he violated the peace of individuals and expressed disrespect for others. At the court session via mobile communication U. E. zh. "I don't know," he said, " but I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. The court, having studied the explanation of U. E. zh., the documents of the case, evaluating all the evidence in the case, examined the video and came to the following conclusion.

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 434 of the administrative code, petty hooliganism, that is, talking in public places, insulting individuals, other acts that show disrespect for others, violate public order and peace of individuals, entails a fine in the amount of five monthly calculation indices or administrative arrest for a period of up to ten days.

The court recognized U. E. Zholdybay as having committed an administrative offense because he felt the illegal nature of his actions and consciously allowed the occurrence of harmful consequences. Because U. E. J., being in a public place, committed petty hooliganism, that is, by his actions he showed disrespect for others and committed petty hooliganism. He got acquainted with the protocol U. E. zh., when filling it out, he was explained the rights and obligations specified in Article 744 of the Administrative Code, he had every opportunity to implement them, but they were not appealed in accordance with the procedure established by law.

The protocol on an administrative offense is drawn up by an authorized official in accordance with the requirements of Article 803 of the Administrative Code, when filling them out, a violation of the law did not occur, all the information necessary for the correct resolution of the case, including the event of an administrative offense, is indicated in the protocol.

There is no reason to call this protocol evidence obtained in violation of the law. U. E. zh.guilt in an administrative offense is confirmed by his written explanation, the protocol on an administrative offense dated February 27, 2025, copies of video recordings, a report of a police officer.

These studied evidence unconditionally establish the truth about all the circumstances to be proved in the case, are admissible in relation to the case, and the totality of evidence is recognized as sufficient for the resolution of the case. In accordance with Part 1 of Article 55 of the administrative code, an administrative penalty for an administrative offense is applied in full compliance with the provisions of this code within the limits provided for in the article of the special part of this section for this administrative offense.

The court, evaluating the evidence, comes to the conclusion that these evidence is sufficient, admissible, clear, relevant to the circumstances investigated in the case and obtained in accordance with the procedure determined by law.

When determining the application of an administrative penalty, the court takes into account the nature of the offense, the circumstances of its commission, the identity of the offender, his behavior before and after the commission of the offense, his property status, taking into account the fact that he committed the offense for the first time under this article.

Part 1 of Article 434 of the administrative code considers it appropriate to assign a fine in the amount of 78640 (3932x20aek) tenge in the amount of an administrative fine in the amount of 20 monthly calculation indices.

Guided by subitem 1) of Part 1 of Article 829-14 of the administrative code,

the court decided: to be found guilty of committing an administrative offense specified in Part 1 of Article 434 of the code of administrative offenses of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and to impose an administrative fine of 78640 (seventy-eight thousand six hundred and forty) tenge.

The fine must be paid voluntarily no later than thirty days from the date of entry into force of the decision.

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