On the recognition of inaction as illegal, illegal and the cancellation of burdensome administrative acts, on the compulsion to take actions to adjust information in the information system "identification of farm animals" on the number, time periods of registration and de-registration of cattle
No.6001-23-00-6ap/704 dated 08/9/2023
Plaintiff: A.T.
The defendants: KGP na PHB "Regional Veterinary Station of the Veterinary Administration of the region", State Institution "Department of Veterinary Medicine of the region", State Institution "Committee for Veterinary Control and Supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan", NAO "National Agrarian Scientific and Educational Center", LLP "Analytical Center for Economic Policy in the agro-industrial complex", to an official of the veterinary office of the village of the rural district.
The subject of the dispute: on the recognition of inaction as illegal, illegal and the cancellation of burdensome administrative acts, on the compulsion to take actions to adjust information in the information system "identification of farm animals" on the number, time periods of registration and de-registration of cattle in the name of the plaintiff
Review of the plaintiff's cassation appeal.
PLOT: By the decision of the city court of September 17, 2020 on the claim of R.L. to A.T. on the determination of shares and the division of common joint property, it was decided, among other things, to recover monetary compensation from A.T. in favor of R.L. for a half share of the value of 31 heads of alienated cattle in the amount of 4 million tenge.
Based on the information provided by officials of the veterinary station on the periods and number of cattle heads supplied and removed on behalf of the plaintiff, they caused a court order to recover a sum of money for cattle that the plaintiff had not acquired in marriage, and was not alienated after its termination.
On August 24, 2021, on the basis of a writ of execution issued by the city court on November 30, 2020, at the request of the representative of R.L. CHSI, enforcement proceedings were initiated to recover the amount owed from A.T. in favor of R.L.
On September 10, 2021, the head of the veterinary station of the city informed the CSI that A.T. had 2 heads of cattle in the region, in the village.
The plaintiff, having seen in the entry and provision of erroneous information in the IPI, signs of the elements of criminal acts provided for in paragraph 3) of part 1 of Article 195 of Articles 206, 207 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (unlawful modification (modification) of information by a person with official authority for official access to the state database) addressed the investigative committee on this matter. The authority is the city's police department for conducting the investigation.
On March 25, 2021, the inquirer, in a decision to terminate the criminal case, established that the certificate submitted to the court signed by the head of the veterinary station of the city, according to his own testimony, was not signed by him.
The certificate was prepared by his subordinate, veterinary technician D., without his signature. Having established the unreliability of the entered information in the IP of the IPJ, A.T. on several occasions from February to May 2022, he addressed the defendants: GKP na PHV "Regional Veterinary Station" - at that time KGP na PHV "Veterinary Station of the city" Department of Veterinary Medicine of the region", GU "Department of Veterinary Medicine of the region", RGU "Committee for Veterinary Control and Supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan" with a requirement based on to provide the submitted certificates from the actual owners of cattle, to correct the erroneous information in the IPI.
Exclude false information about the registration of cattle of these owners in the name of A.T. in the period from September 13, 2012 to August 15, 2017 and their subsequent de-registration as slaughtered, sold. He also asked to provide supporting documents that served as the basis for placing cattle in his name and removing them from his name.
The plaintiff's appeals were dismissed. Judicial acts: 1st instance: the claim is partially satisfied. The defendants' inaction was recognized as illegal, burdensome administrative acts were recognized as illegal and canceled, the defendants were forced to take actions to adjust the information on the number, time periods of registration and de-registration of cattle in the name of the plaintiff solely on the basis of title documents in accordance with the procedure established by law, certifying the occurrence and termination of his ownership rights.
The rest of the administrative claim against the NAO "National Agrarian Scientific and Educational Center" was denied. Appeal: the decision of the court of first instance has been changed in terms of satisfaction of the claim, with a new decision on the rejection of the claim in this part. Cassation: the appeal ruling is upheld.
Conclusions: When deciding to partially satisfy the claim, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff's arguments about indicating that he had 31 head of cattle in the period from September 13, 2012 to August 2017, further information from September 16, 2020, issued by the head of the specified branch office To register 64 heads of cattle for him are erroneous, due to the unreliable entry of information into the IPI.
A similar situation exists according to information from September 10, 2021, issued by the head of the city's wind farm to the bailiff, that 2 heads of cattle are listed for the plaintiff in the region, whereas he has never lived in the specified region, and the presence of cattle in the specified region cannot be. In the course of illegal registration manipulations carried out by a fictitious official, Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich, he registered 100, 64, 31, 27, 21, 19 cattle, which is also unreliable information, denied by the plaintiff.
The court of appeal, changing the court's decision and making a new decision in this part to dismiss the claim, reasonably proceeded from the fact that, in accordance with part 2 of Article 76 of the CPC, the circumstances established by a court decision or decision that entered into force in a previously considered civil case are binding on the court.
Such circumstances are not proven again in other civil cases involving the same persons. On September 17, 2020, the city court of the region considered a civil case on the claim of R.L. to A.T. on the determination of shares and the division of common joint property.
GKP Veterinary Station of the City, Alfa Bank Joint Stock Company, and Eurasian Bank Joint Stock Company have been involved as third parties who do not make independent claims on the subject of the dispute.
Regarding the information on 31 cattle subject to division between spouses, the court accepted as a basis the response of the director of the veterinary station dated July 2, 2018 No. 1-14/153. According to the data of the veterinary station, in the period from September 13, 2012 to August 2017, 31 heads of cattle were registered for A.T., of which 30 heads of cattle, according to the individual number of the animal, were registered during the marriage period and were removed from the register after the termination of the marriage relationship.
The court's decision determined the shares in the common joint property for cattle, with a half share for each spouse. Monetary compensation was collected from A.T. in favor of R.L. for a half share of the value of the alienated cattle in the amount of 4 million tenge. The decision of the city court of September 17, 2020 was appealed by A.T. On November 17, 2020, the judicial board for civil cases of the regional court upheld the decision of the court of first instance, and A.T.'s appeal was dismissed.
With the above, the circumstances that were the subject of research during the consideration of the above-mentioned civil case on the division of jointly acquired property are not proved again in the proceedings of other civil cases involving the same persons.
These persons are currently the plaintiff, the defendant and the interested party in the administrative case. Consequently, the conclusion of the court of appeal on the denial of the claim is legitimate and justified.
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
