Review by the Supreme Court of the court's ruling on recognition as an unfair participant in procurement
On January 28, 2025, No. 6001-24-00-3GP/556, the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, consisting of: the presiding judge E., judges B., having considered with the participation of a representative of the joint–stock company "K" (hereinafter referred to as the Company, the Customer) M., a representative of the limited liability company "V" (hereinafter referred to as the Partnership, Contractor) S.
in open court via mobile videoconference, materials on the Company's claim to the Partnership for recognition as an unfair participant in the procurement,
received at the request of the Company for a review of the ruling of the specialized interdistrict Economic Court of the Aktobe region dated September 27, 2024, the ruling of the judicial board for Civil Cases of the Aktobe Regional Court dated October 31, 2024,
The Company filed a lawsuit against the Partnership with the above-mentioned requirement.
By the ruling of the specialized interdistrict Economic Court of the Aktobe region dated September 27, 2024, which remained unchanged by the ruling of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Aktobe Regional Court dated October 31, 2024, the claim was refused.
In the petition, the Company, pointing to significant violations of the norms of substantive and procedural law committed by local courts, asks to cancel the contested judicial acts and send the materials of the claim for consideration on the merits to the court of first instance.
After hearing the explanations of the plaintiff's representative, who supported the arguments of the petition, the explanations of the defendant's representative, who agreed with the arguments of the petition, having examined the materials attached to the claim, having discussed the arguments of the petition, the judicial board comes to the following.
In accordance with part 5 of Article 438 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), the grounds for cassation review of judicial acts that have entered into force are significant violations of substantive and procedural law that led to the issuance of an illegal judicial act.
Such violations have been committed by local courts.
It follows from the materials of the claim that a contract for the purchase of works dated April 16, 2024 No. 974449/2024/1 (hereinafter referred to as the Contract) was concluded between the Company and the Consortium within the Partnership, together with the Limited Liability Company "N"
Under the Contract, the Contractor assumed obligations to develop design and estimate documentation for the installation and connection of a diesel generator set in the administrative building of the branch of the Department of the Main Gas Pipelines "R" for a total amount of 1,064,000 tenge, including value-added tax. The Customer has undertaken to accept and pay for the work performed, provided that the Contractor fulfills its obligations under the Contract properly.
Clause 3.1 of the Agreement stipulates that the terms, conditions, scope and place of work are determined by Annexes No. 1,2 to this Agreement, according to which the Contractor has undertaken to perform the work from the date of signing the Agreement to August 31, 2024. However, the defendant's work was not completed within the time limit set by the Contract.
The plaintiff, pointing out that the Contractor's violation of obligations under the Contract entailed negative consequences for the Customer, appealed to the court to recognize the Partnership as an unfair participant in the procurement.
The Court of first instance, with the conclusions of which the appeals board agreed, refusing to accept the claim, proceeded from the fact that the claimed claim is not subject to consideration in civil proceedings, since the purchase of goods, works and services by the Company is regulated by the Procurement Procedure of Joint Stock Company "A" (hereinafter referred to as the Fund) and legal entities, fifty or more percent of the voting shares (participation interests) of which are directly or indirectly owned by the Fund by right of ownership or trust management, approved by the decision of the Board of Directors of the Fund dated March 3, 2022 No. 193 (hereinafter referred to as the Procedure), which does not actually provide for a judicial procedure for recognizing suppliers as unreliable.
In addition, according to clause 7.6 of the Agreement, in case of violation by the supplier of its obligations under the agreement, the customer sends information to the authorized procurement authority in accordance with the established procedure to include information about the supplier in the list of unreliable potential suppliers (suppliers) of the Fund.
However, such conclusions of the local courts cannot be accepted, as they are based on the incorrect application and interpretation of substantive and procedural law.
Refusal to accept a claim is one of the forms of ending the judicial process without making a decision due to the presence of circumstances that prevent the consideration of a legal dispute on its merits.
In turn, the grounds for refusal to accept the claim are defined in subitems 1)-3) of part 1 of Article 151 of the CPC. This list is exhaustive and is not subject to extensive interpretation.
It follows from the content of the contested judicial acts that the refusal to accept the claim is justified by the impossibility of considering the case in civil proceedings.
There is no such basis based on the materials of the claim.
According to subparagraph 1) of part 1 of Article 151 of the CPC, the judge refuses to accept the claim if the application is not subject to consideration and resolution in civil proceedings.
The application of this rule of the procedural law is possible only if the plaintiff does not have the right to appeal to the court, and the protection of the violated rights of the person who appealed to the court is carried out in a different manner from civil proceedings.
Meanwhile, the method chosen by the plaintiff to protect civil rights is directly provided for by law and can be implemented by him solely by filing a claim in the framework of civil proceedings.
This conclusion of the board is consistent with the relevant norms of substantive and procedural law.
Parts 2 of Articles 48, 225 of the CPC state that the court resolves the case within the limits of the plaintiff's claims and does not have the right to change the subject matter or the basis of the claim on its own initiative.
According to the explanations given in paragraph 16 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 11, 2003 No. 5 "On judicial decision in civil cases", the basis of the claim should be understood as the facts indicated by the interested person, entailing the emergence, modification or termination of the material legal relationship that is the subject of the claim.
When making a decision, by virtue of part 1 of Article 225 of the CPC, the court is obliged to establish what the legal relations of the parties are, which law should be applied in this case and whether the stated claim is subject to satisfaction.
The protection of civil rights can be implemented by the methods established both in paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and in other ways provided for by legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The Company's claim is based on the failure of the Partnership to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement.
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Procurement of certain entities of the quasi-public sector" (hereinafter - The Law) defines that this Law regulates relations related to the acquisition of goods, works, and services necessary to ensure the functioning and performance of the statutory activities of national management holdings, national holdings, national companies and organizations, fifty percent or more of the voting shares (participation shares in the authorized capital) of which are directly or indirectly owned by national managing holdings, national holdings, national companies, as well as socio-entrepreneurial corporations, with the exception of legal entities, fifty or more percent of the voting shares (stakes in the authorized capital) of which are directly or indirectly owned by a national management holding company, a national holding company, or national companies transferred to trust management by individuals or non-governmental legal entities with the right to subsequent redemption (hereinafter referred to as individual quasi–public sector entities).
The company is a part of Joint stock company "Z", which owns 100% of the shares.
According to the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 6, 2011 No. 376 "On approval of the list of national Management holdings, national holdings, national companies", Joint Stock Company "Z" is included in the list of national companies.
Thus, the provisions of the Law related to the acquisition by the Company of goods, works, and services necessary to ensure its functioning, as well as to carry out its statutory activities, are mandatory for the Customer.
Paragraph 1, subparagraph 3) Paragraph 2, paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Law establishes that the register of unscrupulous procurement participants is formed in the electronic procurement information system.
The register of unscrupulous procurement participants is a list of suppliers who have failed to fulfill or improperly fulfilled their obligations under contracts concluded with them.
In the case specified in subparagraph 3) of part one of this paragraph, the customer is obliged, no later than thirty calendar days from the date on which he became aware of the supplier's violation of the contract, to file a lawsuit with the court for recognition of such supplier as an unscrupulous participant in the procurement, except in cases of payment by the supplier of a penalty (fine, fine) and full performance they have no contractual obligations.
The register of unfair procurement participants is formed on the basis of a court decision that has entered into force in the cases provided for in subparagraphs 2) and 3) of the first paragraph of paragraph 2 of this article.
The judicial procedure for recognizing unreliable potential suppliers is also provided for by the relevant provisions of the Procedure.
Paragraph 1 of the Procedure stipulates that the list of unreliable potential suppliers (suppliers) of the Fund is formed and maintained by the Fund's Procurement Operator on the Procurement web portal as information is received from the Customer(s) and from the procurement web portal.
Тәртіптің 2-тармағының 4) тармақшасымен әлеуетті өнім беруші (Өнім беруші) Қордың сенімсіз әлеуетті өнім берушілерінің (өнім берушілерінің) тізбесіне мынадай негіздер бойынша енгізілуге жататыны анықталды:
- сатып алу туралы шартты орындамау немесе тиісінше орындамау фактісін анықтаған заңды күшіне енген сот шешімінің (қаулысының) болуы.
Шарттың 7.6-бабында Қордың сенімсіз өнім берушілерінің тізбесіне өнім берушіні енгізу үшін уәкілетті органға ақпарат беру тәртібінде талапкердің талап-арызбен сотқа жүгінуі үшін талаптар жоқ екендігі туралы жергілікті соттардың тұжырымдары құқық нормаларына негізделмеген.
Сенімсіз өнім беруші туралы уәкілетті органға тиісті ақпаратты жіберумен қатар Тапсырыс беруші қор операторына өнім берушінің сатып алу туралы шартты орындамау немесе тиісінше орындамау фактісін анықтаған заңды күшіне енген сот шешімінің көшірмесін беруге міндетті.
Мұндай талаптар Тәртіптің 5-тармағының 3-тармағында, 4) тармақшасында қамтылады.
Осыған байланысты жергілікті соттардың заңмен және тәртіппен сатып алуға жосықсыз қатысушы деп танудың сот тәртібі көзделмегені туралы тұжырымдары дәрменсіз болып табылады.
Шағымданатын сот актілерімен жағдайды құқықтық шешуге кедергі жасалды. Бұзылған немесе даулы құқықтарды, бостандықтарды немесе заңды мүдделерді қорғау үшін сотқа жүгінудің конституциялық құқығын бұза отырып, жергілікті соттар қоғамның сот төрелігіне қол жеткізуін шектеу арқылы сот ісін қабылдаудан заңсыз бас тартты.
Мұндай жағдайларда алқа өтінішхат дәлелдерінің негізділігі туралы қорытындыға келеді. Жол берілген бұзушылықтар елеулі болып табылады, өйткені соттардың заңсыз сот актілерін шығаруына әкеп соқтырды, бұл оларға қоса берілген материалдармен талап қоюды бірінші сатыдағы сотқа мәні бойынша жаңа қарауға жібере отырып, олардың күшін жоюға әкеп соғады.
Жаңа қарау кезінде сот істің материалдарында бар және тараптар ұсынған дәлелдемелерді жиынтықта және жан-жақты зерттеп, бағалауы, оларға тиісті құқықтық баға беруі, істі дұрыс шешу үшін маңызы бар мән-жайларды айқындауы, даулы құқықтық қатынастарға қолдануға жататын заңды қолдануы және қорытындылары бойынша азаматтық іс жүргізу заңының талаптарына сәйкес келетін заңды және негізделген шешім шығаруы қажет.
АІЖК-нің 451-бабы 2-бөлігінің 5) тармақшасын басшылыққа ала отырып, сот алқасы ҚАУЛЫ ЕТТІ:
Ақтөбе облысының Мамандандырылған ауданаралық экономикалық сотының 2024 жылғы 27 қыркүйектегі ұйғарымы, Ақтөбе облыстық сотының азаматтық істер жөніндегі сот алқасының 2024 жылғы 31 қазандағы ұйғарымы осы талап бойынша жойылсын.
Оған қоса берілген материалдармен талап қою Ақтөбе облысының мамандандырылған ауданаралық экономикалық сотына жаңа қарауға жіберілсін.
"К" акционерлік қоғамының өтінішхаты қанағаттандырылсын.
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
