On the assignment of the obligation to restore the record to the copyright holders

No.6001-23-00-6ap/1126 dated 08/28/2023

Plaintiff: S.A. Defendant: NAO "Government for Citizens State Corporation"

The subject of the dispute: the assignment of the obligation to restore the record to the copyright holders.

Review of the plaintiff's cassation appeal.

Judicial acts:

1st instance: the claim is returned.

Appeal: the court ruling is upheld.

Cassation: judicial acts are upheld.

Conclusions: According to subparagraph 12) of part 2 of Article 138 of the CPC, the court issues a ruling on the return of the claim if there is a court decision or court ruling on the approval of an agreement on reconciliation, mediation or dispute settlement that has entered into legal force, made in a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject and on the same grounds. as a participatory procedure.

The court of first instance, guided by the above-mentioned norms, reasonably returned this claim, since it was reliably established that earlier, by the decision of the city court of October 25, 2019, a similar claim of S.A.V. to the NAO was considered with the requirement to restore ownership of a half share of S.N.A. to apartment No. 73, located at: 50 Dimitrova Street, city. The claim was denied.

Taking into account that, according to part 1 of Article 116 of the CPC, when determining the subject of a claim, the court is not bound by the wording of the claims, the text of the claim and the documents attached to it or submitted later, the court correctly concluded that the subject of the filed claims is identical, the dispute was resolved on the merits by a judicial act dated October 25, 2019.

In this regard, the court of first instance reasonably returned the claim on the above grounds, which the appellate judicial board legitimately agreed with, leaving the ruling of the court of first instance unchanged.

The applicant's arguments regarding the lack of assessment of the defendant's response dated March 29, 2022, are unfounded, since, by virtue of the stated requirements, the court considered a claim for actions, no claims for challenge were filed, moreover, in this case, the NAO's response dated March 29, 2022 cannot be regarded as an administrative act, since the specified document is an explanatory letter.

 

 

 

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