The appeal against the court's decision to refuse compensation for material damage and expenses incurred in connection with the seizure of a land plot for state needs was rejected in full

 

 

 

 

Judicial Board

in civil cases

courts of Astana city

 

The third person:

A.E., IIN .,

residing in Almaty,

223 N. ave., sq. 30

tel. +.

The defendant:

Akimat of Astana

BIN 010140002030

010000, Astana, Saryarkinsky district,

Beibitshilik street, 11, +7(7172)556484; +77017000990

 

The appeal

on the decision of the Saryarkinsky district Court of Astana dated 22.02.2023

 

Initially, the land was registered to me, then I reissued it to my spouse. But I carried out and paid for all the work, so I am aware of all the problems that occurred at the sites, which are being withdrawn by the akimat for the third time.

Due to the fact that there are many objections, they are divided into 4 sections:

I. on the plaintiffs' expenses for the development of land plots before the release of Resolution No. 510-547 dated March 11, 2020;

II. about the payment to the plaintiff A.A.E. of the cost of land plots, the assessment of which was significantly delayed due to the fault of the akimat; payment for the fence, building materials, etc., on land plots seized for state needs;

III. about the illegal destruction and plundering of private property by the Akimat's division (Department of Fuel and Energy Complex and Utilities) and contractors who carried out construction work under a contract with this department;

objections to Judge Rashkalieva G.E. regarding the biased consideration of the case and the adoption of a court decision that distorts the facts and does not correspond to reality.

By the decision of the Saryarkinsky District Court of Astana dated February 22, 2023, under the chairmanship of Judge Rashkalieva G.E. with the participation of the prosecutor of the Saryarkinsky district Tagayeva T.U., the claim of A.A.E. for compensation for material damage and expenses incurred by her in connection with the seizure of a land plot for state needs was rejected in full.

I disagree with this court decision on the following grounds.

I. If the resolution of the Akimat of Astana No.510-547 dated March 11, 2020 "On the compulsory alienation (purchase) of land for public needs" had not been adopted, the plaintiffs A.A.E. and A.E. would not have lost significant funds (more than 80 million tenge), which they spent before the adoption of this resolution on the development of private a land plot with an area of 0.3646 ha belonging to A. A.E. and two leased plots with an area of 0.2205 ha, namely:

a) for the construction in August –September 2019 of a 330-meter-high metal fence with a height of 3 meters with two gates with a market value of 10,997,157 (ten million nine hundred ninety seven thousand one hundred fifty seven) tenge, while before the destruction of the fence and the self-seizure of the land plot, a part of the building materials and a construction trailer with a total cost remained on the construction site 3,500,000 (three million five hundred thousand) tenge;

b) for the preparation of various preliminary works on land plots – 1,722,037 (one million seven hundred twenty two thousand thirty seven) tenge;

c) according to the resolution of the Akimat of Astana No. 120-2396 dated December 02, 2016 for the design of a restaurant and wellness complex on a private land plot: development of a draft design (approved by the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning of Astana on September 19, 2017 No. 11892) – 2,300,000 (two million three hundred thousand) tenge;

d) the development, according to this permission of the Akimat, of a multi-volume work project for a four-storey building with a total area of about 10 thousand square meters.m. and the examination of the work project with a positive conclusion no.EQ-0020/19 dated October 21, 2019 for a total amount of 43 100 000 (forty three million one hundred thousand) tenge.

Thus, according to the originals submitted to the court: report No. 87/06 "On the assessment of the market value of real estate" dated June 18, 2020, which contains supporting photographs with the presence of a metal fence, a construction trailer and parts of building materials; receipts for payment for various preliminary works on land plots; According to the preliminary and working drafts with the appropriate expertise and certificates of completed works, the Saryarkinsky District Court could establish that the total cost of the plaintiffs amounted to 61,619,194 (sixty-one million six hundred nineteen thousand one hundred ninety-four) tenge.

However, the judge ignored these facts, although she was told that by the beginning of the construction of the facility, i.e. by the end of 2019, the plaintiffs had spent 77 million tenge, which was reported to the Mayor of Astana in my written statement dated May 27, 2020. At the same time, the plaintiffs noted that in October 2019, a passport was posted at the facility and the construction of the restaurant and wellness complex was supposed to begin in April 2020.

Unfortunately, the court was not provided with the originals of a number of other expenses incurred by us, for which supporting documents were not received in a timely manner or they were lost, so the amount indicated in the claim turned out to be less than what was actually spent.

It follows from the above that the main basis of claim A is that almost the entire amount of the claim for compensation for material damage and expenses incurred by us occurred before the release of the Akimat's resolution dated March 11, 2020, so the reimbursement of our costs should not have been questioned by the court.

However, Judge Rashkalieva G.E. did not discuss these data and transferred the court session to the consideration of secondary issues that only indirectly relate to the main essence of the claim, namely whether Akimat A.A.E. paid the amount of compensation for the land plot determined by the Almaty district court in full and when; whether law enforcement officials were called when the demolition of the fence of a private land plot has begun; at what time did it happen; did the plaintiffs inform the akimat about these violations in writing and demanded compensation for their expenses for the construction of the fence; was the akimat responsible for the destruction of the fence; however, she did not ask: who exactly illegally destroyed the fence, invading private territory; who plundered private property – at least 110 metal pipes more than 3 meters long, hundreds of trapezoidal sheets, corners, fittings, 20 foundation blocks, other building materials, a construction wagon; where this property is located now; who will return them to the owners and when.

Thus, the judge's bias is obvious, especially since on the morning of February 22, at a court hearing, she announced that she would announce the decision on March 1 at 5 p.m., however, she unexpectedly changed her decision and announced it on February 22 at 5:30 p.m., but without my participation. This means that she was instructed to make an urgent decision with a negative result for A.

Due to the fact that the judge in his decision of February 22, 2023, does not mention at all the issues of reimbursement of the plaintiffs' expenses that occurred before the release of resolution No. 510-547 of March 11, 2020, I am forced to send copies of documents to the court again, which confirm that we did not develop our land without permission, but performed various works., including the fencing of the construction site, according to the decree of the Akimat:

Akimat Resolution No. 120-2396 dated December 2, 2016 "On Permission to design a restaurant and wellness complex" (Akim A.Issekeshev);

Protocol No. 22 of the Urban Planning Council of Astana dated August 29, 2017 (Chairman – Akim A. Issekeshev);

technical and economic indicators of the facility (October 2019);

The Abylkasymovs' letter to the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan K.-Zh.K. Tokayev dated July 20, 2020 and the response from the Prosecutor General's Office dated August 13, 2020.

All other materials (the originals of the draft and working drafts, the examination of the construction site, etc., were previously sent to Judge Rashkalieva G.E. by registered mail and their receipt was confirmed to us).

II. The judge unreasonably repeatedly listened to the opinion of the representatives of the defendants, who claimed that A.A.E. compensation for the seized land plot was paid in full: 286,484,450 (two hundred and eighty-six million four hundred and eighty-four thousand four hundred and fifty) tenge for a privately owned land plot with an area of 0.3646 hectares and for two leased plots with an area of 0.2205 1,495,807 (one million four hundred and ninety-five thousand eight hundred and seven) tenge per hectare, therefore, the akimat has already re-registered these plots into state ownership. While there is no mention of this in the statement of claim, therefore, we offered the defendants to compensate the plaintiffs only for the material damage suffered by the owner of the land plot A.A.E. for its development, i.e. before the adoption of the Akimat resolution No. 510-547 dated March 11, 2020.

Due to her bias, the judge discussed only the question: Was there a fence surrounding the land plots of A.A.E.? Therefore, she summoned a third party to court – a representative of the State Institution "Management of the Fuel and Energy Complex and Utilities of Astana", who began to claim that there were no buildings at the site at the beginning of construction work, although she reported that That on May 11, 2020, an agreement was signed with a construction company on the construction of a park in the area around the Kazakh Drama theater under construction. In this regard, I was forced to prove that there was a fence on the A.A.E. land plot, i.e. a structure, building materials and a wagon were located on the territory, and the destruction of the fence, seizure of private territory and its development began before June 19, 2020, i.e. the deadline set by the akimat when the forced alienation of private property was to begin. the land plot.

Despite the availability of a variety of materials confirming the presence of a building on the land (metal fence) and a number of building materials, the judge did not consider the issue of establishing the guilt of akimat employees and bringing them to justice.

The judge paid only a cursory attention to the question of why the reimbursement of the market value of the land plot of A.A.E. occurred only in October 2022.

Therefore, for the information of the appeals board, I would like to inform you that in the period from May 2020 to November 2021, the akimat repeatedly held tenders on a competitive basis to assess the market value of the A.A.E. land plot with an area of 0.3646 hectares, which had very low estimates (in the range of 90.6 million – 126.7 million tenge), which did not correspond to market prices. In this regard, the owner of the land plot, A.A.E., had to turn to independent appraisers and independent forensic commodity experts.

In general, for the period from April 2021 to August 2022, including by order of the plaintiffs, 4 land assessments and 4 forensic commodity examinations were conducted, while the estimates were in the range of 289.7 million – 352.3 million tenge, forensic examinations in the range of 284.6 million – 314.5 million tenge. It should be noted that the district court and the appeals board of the city Court twice sent assignments to the Center for Forensic Examinations of the Ministry of Justice in Astana, which issued an estimate of 286.5 million tenge on February 24, 2022, and 314 million 484 thousand tenge on August 9, 2022. It follows from this that the akimat, represented by the State Enterprise for Urban Real Estate (Director A.N. Strochkov)  He purposefully reduced the valuation amount of a private land plot and delayed the process of returning the market value to A.A.E. for the land plots seized from her.

It was only in January 2022 that the akimat filed a claim with the Almaty district court, where, as a result, A. proved his case and only in October 2022 received the required amount, according to the decision of the district and city courts, for the land plots seized from A.A.E. At the same time, it should be emphasized that these courts did not raise or consider the issues of reimbursement of the costs incurred by A. for the development of land plots and their costs for assessments and legal services.

Unfortunately, Judge Rashkalieva G.E. did not delve into the essence of these processes, although it was necessary to do so, since A. in her lawsuit additionally demands to reimburse the costs they incurred for all kinds of assessments of a private land plot; forensic commodity expertise; for flights from Almaty to Astana and vice versa, due to the fact that The specialists demanded to see the land plot, so their reports show the condition of the seized land plots at the time of assessment or examination.

A.A.E. estimated these expenses, including the services of a lawyer, at 2,593,292 (two million five hundred and ninety-three thousand two hundred and ninety-two) tenge. The judge's refusal to reimburse them is illegal, because A. was forced to defend his interests by the Akimat of Astana.

 

III. When considering the claim, Judge Rashkalieva G.E. paid a lot of attention to the question of when the akimat began to break down the fence and seize private property, while she was presented with the originals of materials that proved the illegality of the akimat's actions.

The judge was presented with the following documents proving the self-seizure of other people's property by akimat employees, and, first of all, Akimat resolution No. 510-547 dated March 11, 2020 "On compulsory alienation (purchase) of land for state needs", paragraph 1 of which states: "To be carried out from June 19, 2020 to June 19, 2021 forced alienation of land plots belonging to A.A.E.". But the akimat ignored this resolution and began seizing private property after May 11, 2020, when the Astana Department of Fuel and Energy Complex and Utilities concluded an agreement with a contractor to carry out survey design work on squares and boulevards along Mynzhyldyk Alley. At the same time, it should be noted that the akimat also did not comply with the deadlines for the withdrawal for state needs of more than 40 land plots located next to the A.A.E. land plots, according to Resolution No. 510/891 of May 12, 2020, which states: "to carry out forced alienation of land plots from August 7, 2020 to August 7, 2021. the total area is about 7.5 hectares."

The judge reviewed a number of other documents that proved that the seizure by the akimat began in May 2020, but did not draw any conclusions from this fact. She was introduced to:

1) A.E.'s statement dated May 27, 2020 to the Mayor of Astana, which states that as of May 25: "builders, without our consent, broke down the entrance gate to my site, built a driveway, tore down the fence on the north side of my fence, filled my territory with their waste";

2) police materials, according to which police officers were called to the land on May 25, 2020, who stated the fact of the destruction of the fence and the presence of construction debris on the territory, etc., as well as my statement to the Almaty district police department dated June 4, 2020 about the seizure of private property by the akimat. In this case, the police should have opened a criminal case on the fact of destruction and self-seizure of other people's property, but they wrote it off as a nomenclature case, and A.'s appeals. They didn't give anything to the prosecutor's office, because there was a pandemic and it was impossible to get an appointment with their leadership, so the prosecutor's office and the police wrote us only unsubscriptions.;

3) report No. 87/06 on the assessment of the market value of real estate dated June 18, 2020, in which appraiser A.A. Aldiev indicates that the process of destroying the 330-meter metal fence is in full swing, while the territory is littered with construction debris, there is no part of the building materials, but there is a construction trailer and all this is recorded in the attached to the report photos from June 16, 2020;

4) the report on the valuation of real estate by the Kalinin Partners valuation and consulting company dated April 13, 2021, the photos of which show that there is no fence on the land and it has already been developed by the akimat.  

The above-mentioned materials prove that representatives of the akimat destroyed and then arbitrarily seized other people's property, and violated the terms of alienation established by the akimat, while not paying A. A.E. the market value of land plots.

Instead, the division of the akimat started all kinds of assessments, i.e. in various ways delayed the process of returning the market value of the property seized from the owner. At the same time, the court was provided with copies of all letters to the akimat, in which the owner A.A.E. demanded the return of building materials, a construction trailer and reimburse the cost of the fence, which was destroyed by the builders of the square around the drama theater under an agreement with the akimat.

However, this was not enough for Judge R.G.A. and the representative of the prosecutor's office, T.U. Tagaeva, so they decided to dismiss A.A.E.'s claim. Then how should the actions of the Akimat and the management of the fuel and energy complex and utilities of Astana be assessed as a gross violation of the norms of current legislation: violation of property rights to land - art. 201 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, intentional destruction or damage to other people's property – art. 202 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, abuse of power or official authority – art. 362 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

To prove the correctness of A.A.E., we are forced to send additional materials to the appeals board, which show that by July 11, 2020, there was a complete seizure of a private land plot with the destruction of its fencing and theft of private property..

Report No. 65/1 ALM-157/4 "On the assessment of the market value of real estate" dated June 25, 2020, which was produced by Business Partner Consult LLP commissioned by Astana City Real estate (Director A.N. Strochkov) based on the results of a public procurement tender, i.e. by the Akimat, while the land plot was valued at 90,571,704 (ninety million five hundred seventy one thousand seven hundred four) tenge. However, we proved the inconsistency of this assessment, but it was valid for 6 months.

Then A.N. Strochkov held the second tender and again Business Partner Consult LLP announced the winner, which conducted the second assessment and it amounted to 117,792,000 (one hundred seventeen million seven hundred and ninety-two thousand) tenge. The bias of this assessment was proved by A. on the basis of independent assessments and forensic commodity expertise. It should be noted that in the first report dated June 25, 2020, the photographs show that the fencing on the A.A.E. land plot is no longer there, and paving stones (sidewalks) have already been laid on part of the territory. This was verbally told to the judge that in May-June 2020, the land plot of A.A.E. was practically seized and construction work was carried out on it by contractors, who were contractually hired by the akimat, namely– the Department of the Fuel and Energy complex and Utilities of Astana (head of the department T. Kulushev).

In addition, two letters from A.N. Strochkov were presented to the judge.:

On April 9, 2021, A.E. wrote a letter to the mayor of Astana asking him to reimburse him for the costs incurred for the construction of the fence and return the construction trailer, but on April 21, 2021, he received a letter from A.N. Strochkov, who sent the same letter to the Department of Fuel and Energy Complex and Utilities of Astana. He's writing: "We ask you to return the construction wagon to the owner of A.A.E., as landscaping and landscaping works were carried out on this site by subordinate and contracting organizations."

Thus, A.N. Strochkov confirmed that construction work in the summer of 2020 was carried out on a private plot of land, while a construction wagon was located there. However, the judge ignored this fact and became guided by the statement of the representative of the akimat at the trial that there was no self-seizure of someone else's land.

In the second letter from A.N. Strochkov dated October 19, 2022, it said: "We inform you that before the payment of monetary compensation by the Department, no work was carried out on the site," i.e. until October 2022, thereby he misled the court, but the judge again did not pay attention to this deception. from one of the heads of the Akimat of Astana, who is directly responsible for the seizure of land for state needs. His actions fall under Article 420 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (knowingly false testimony).

 

IV. In the reasoning part of the decision of the Saryarkinsky district Court, Judge Rashkalieva G.E. completely distorts the facts: "the plaintiff was obliged to take measures to ensure the safety of her property," "there were no buildings on the land at the beginning of construction work," "evidence of the guilt of the akimat itself was not presented by the plaintiff." Based on false conclusions, the judge concludes that there was no demolition of the fence, removal of the wagon and construction materials by the akimat, i.e. the plaintiff's arguments are untenable and have no justification.

Naturally, such conclusions on the part of the judge cause not only bewilderment and indignation, but also raise the question: can such an unbiased judge continue to practice law? I believe this issue should be sent to the Supreme Judicial Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

In fact, all the originals of the required documents were sent to Judge Rashkalieva G.E., while a significant part of them were announced at court sessions.

The evidence that the division of the akimat – the Astana Fuel and Energy Management Department - was involved in the self–seizure of private property before the start of the process of seizing land for public needs, i.e. before June 19, 2020, is the conclusion by this department on May 11, 2020 of an agreement with a contractor for the performance of design and other works on squares and boulevards. along the Mynzhyldyk alley. This was stated in court by a representative of this department, but the judge did not demand to submit a copy of this document to the court. Therefore, it is difficult to determine who exactly destroyed the private fence and who plundered the plaintiffs' property without this agreement. The fact that this department was entrusted with the construction of squares is stated in the main resolution of the Akimat No. 510-547 dated March 11, 2020, which also specifies the time frame for the withdrawal of land. However, it turned out that Judge Rashkalieva G.E. does not read the documents, so she gives such false conclusions.

In addition to this resolution, she was presented with the following documents, which prove that the destruction of private property began before June 19, 2020:

The statement to the mayor dated May 27, 2020, written by me and submitted to the office of the Mayor's office, it states that the builders not only broke the locks on two gates, but also demolished the gate itself, part of the fence, took away building materials and built a driveway on a private territory. The same was verbally stated to Deputy Akim Amrin A. and his staff on the same day. Therefore, it is absurd to say that the plaintiff must protect his property if, on behalf of the akimat's office, a private metal fence is illegally destroyed, other people's construction materials are exported, and senior officials of the akimat do not respond to oral and written complaints, and therefore contractors continue their work, since the akimat's department pays money to the builders of the square for this work.. The judge could verify this fact and establish the truth.

Coupon-notification No. 2656 dated May 30, 2020, issued by A.M. Tursinkhanov, a police officer on duty from the Almaty district police Department, upon damage to the metal fence enclosing the private territory of A.A.E.

Coupon-notification No. 8247 dated June 4, 2020, issued by the ROP duty officer Sharimbekova A.N., upon acceptance of a written statement from A.E., which states that, on the instructions of the Mayor's Office of Astana, destruction and plundering of private property is in full swing, and I saw these facts on May 24 upon arrival in Astana from Almaty, where I live permanently. But the police did not stop the lawlessness happening on the A.A.E. land plots, but only left my application without consideration. At the same time, they indicated that in order to initiate a criminal case, the damage must exceed 4,000 MCI (1 MCI is equal to 2,778 tenge, i.e. 4000 MCI was 11 million 112 thousand tenge).

An independent estimate of the cost of the fence dated June 16, 2020, which amounted to 10,972,153 (ten million nine hundred and seventy-two thousand one hundred and fifty-three) tenge, while the cost of the construction wagon and other building materials was not taken into account, i.e. the police did not bother and wrote off A.E.'s statement in the nomenclature file.

After that, two applications were submitted to the mayor of the city – dated June 30 and July 2, 2020, which indicated all the lawlessness committed by builders on the private territory of A.A.E. But since there was no reaction from the heads of the akimat, A. were forced to turn to the President of the country K.-J. on July 20, 2020. K. Tokayev requested protection from the lawlessness of the authorities in the person of the Mayor of Astana, but received a reply from the Prosecutor General's Office, i.e. the letter did not reach the Head of State.

Due to the fact that Judge Rashkalieva G.E. inattentively read or did not read the materials submitted by me to the court, I have to re-send copies of these materials to the judges of the appeals board.

The most evidentiary material for the court is the report No. 87/06 "On the assessment of the market value of real estate" from appraiser A. Aldiev, which contains color photographs of the fence and the territory of a private land plot, made on June 16, 2020. These photos show that the gate has already been demolished, part of the fence is missing, the territory of the site has been turned into a roadway, there are remnants of foundation blocks and building materials, the passport of the object has been posted, the construction wagon has been preserved, but without doors and windows, and the text of the report says: part of the fence is missing with a length of 78 m. (not including gates) and metal posts for fastening (it should be noted that the original report is in the possession of Judge Rashkalieva G.E.).

The report 65/1 ALM-157/4 "On the assessment of the market value of real estate" dated June 25, 2020, which was produced by Business Partner Consult LLP by order of the Municipal Real Estate Company subordinate to the Akimat on the right of the state institution "Department of Construction and Housing Policy of Astana" (Director A.N. Strochkov), is very evidentiary. based on the results of the conducted tender and the contract for the purchase of services dated May 15, 2020. The photos in this report show that the fence is no longer there, and a sidewalk made of paving stones has been laid on part of the territory. These photos confirm that A.N. Strochkov He misled the court in his letter to A.A.E. dated October 19, 2022, claiming that "no work was carried out on the site before the payment of monetary compensation by the Department."

Thus, these materials are more than enough to prove the fact that the management of the fuel and energy complex and utilities of the Akimat of Astana and the contractor construction organization hired by it carried out construction work on a private plot of land, having previously destroyed a metal fence with two gates and gates with locks, while plundering private property and removing building materials and a wagon, and until the beginning of the process of seizing land for state needs.

I believe the judges should be aware that the seizure is considered completed if the person from whom the land plot is being seized is reimbursed for the market value of the land plot, and this happened by decision of the Almaty district court only in October 2022. This means that the akimat's division had no right to destroy the fence and plunder private property until the deadline for A.A.E.'s payment of the market value for the land plots seized from her for state needs.

In connection with the above, Judge Rashkalieva G.E. made her decision irresponsibly, biased and biased, so I have the right to raise the issue of her compliance with her position before the relevant authorities.

I also consider it necessary to provide the Court of Appeal with another evidentiary document – report No. 19/07 on the assessment of the market value of real estate dated July 14, 2020, produced by an independent appraiser Tatenov N.M., based on the order of my son– A.M.

The inspection of the A.A.E. land plot was carried out on July 11, 2020, the photographs show that the metal fence of the private land plot is no longer there, while there is no construction wagon and building materials, the territory is littered with soil and sand, some concrete circles have appeared, a Kamaz dump truck is located on the territory, that is, development foreign territory is in full swing, while private property has already been plundered.  One photo shows a metal fence belonging to the city, which blocks the view of construction sites and other buildings from Zh. Nazhmedenova Street.

Thus, the conclusion of Judge Rashkalieva G.E., in which she writes: "In the present case, the defendant's guilt, the illegality of his actions and the causal relationship between the defendant's guilt and the resulting consequences in the form of material damage to the plaintiff, has not been proven to the court," she further states: "At the same time, the plaintiff, presenting this the claim to the akimat, which is not a construction organization, did not provide the court with evidence that it was the defendant who demolished (destroyed, destroyed) the property located on the land plot, within whose competence this type of work does not apply," finally, further: "The photographs of the land area provided by the plaintiff do not establish the fact that the fence was demolished and the construction materials were removed by the defendant, since these photographs are not dated, which excludes the possibility of establishing the time period when the moment of construction work was filmed. Also, it is not possible to establish the exact location of the plaintiff's land plots in the presented photographs," which is completely untrue.

After all, the judge was presented with all the originals of the reports, photographs, and forensic examinations filed together, which were clearly dated at the time of the inspection and photographing of the land plot, while the location of the object was also clearly indicated - the Republic of Kazakhstan, Nur–Sultan, Almaty district, the intersection of streets No. 23-15 and Zh. Nazhvedenova.

In this regard, questions arise to Judge Rashkalieva G.E.: Why don't you carefully read the documents that are already in your hands? Why do you make a biased court decision without knowing the true facts? Why did you focus on the issues of demolishing fences and seizing private property in your decision, while not relying on facts and making an extremely biased decision? After all, the plaintiffs demanded that the court return to them 61,619,194 tenge, which they spent on the development of the land plot, according to the resolution of the akimat adopted by Akim A. Issekeshev on December 2, 2016 No. 120-2396, i.e. You were aware that the plaintiffs spent their funds on the development of sketches, a working draft, expertise, etc. by decision of the akimat. These expenses occurred in the period prior to the release of Akimat Resolution No. 510-547 dated March 11, 2020. But you pretended that it had nothing to do with the statement of claim.

Thus, the bias and bias of the decision of Judge Rashkalieva G.E. is beyond doubt, therefore, her decision is subject to cancellation.

According to Article 427 of the CPC, the grounds for revoking or changing a court decision on appeal are: incorrect determination and clarification of the range of circumstances relevant to the case; lack of evidence of circumstances relevant to the case established by the court of first instance; inconsistency of the conclusions of the court of first instance set out in the decision with the circumstances of the case; violation or improper application of substantive and procedural norms. the rights, as well as the norms of substantive law, are considered violated or improperly applied if the court: has not applied the law to be applied; applied a law that cannot be applied; misinterpreted the law.

Articles 401, 402, 403, 404 of the CPC RK provide that an appeal may be filed against court decisions that have not entered into force. The right of appeal against a court decision belongs to the parties and other persons involved in the case, and are considered by the appellate judicial board for civil cases of the regional and equivalent courts in a collegial composition of at least three judges of the board. Appeals are filed through the court that issued the decision. Appeals may be filed within one month from the date of the final decision, and by persons who did not participate in the trial, from the date of sending them a copy of the decision.

Based on the above, and guided by Articles 401 and 427 of the CPC RK,

I ask the Court of Appeal:

To cancel the decision of the Saryarkinsky district court of Astana dated February 22, 2023.

to make a new decision to satisfy A.'s claim in full.

Due to the fact that Judge Rashkalieva G.E. may not hand over to the appeals board some of the materials previously submitted to her, I am forced to resubmit copies of all the materials mentioned in the appeal to the court on 108 sheets, namely:

 

Akimat Resolution No. 510-547 dated 03/13/2020 on the seizure of land plots (3 l.).

Akimat Resolution No. 120-2396 dated 12/22/2016 on the design permit for the restaurant and wellness complex (2 liters).

Protocol No. 22 of the Urban Planning Council of Astana dated 28.08.2017 (1 liter).

Technical and economic indicators of the facility, October 2019 (1 liter).

Letter to the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan K.-Zh. K. Tokayev dated 07/20/2020 with a response from the Prosecutor General's Office dated 08/13/2020 (4 liters).

Summary data on private land estimates and forensic commodity examinations (1 l.).

Statement by A.E. Akim dated 05/27/2020 (2 liters).

Materials of the police of Almaty district of Astana (8 l.).

The report of Business Partner Consult LLP dated 06/25/2020 (37 pages).

The title page of the report of Business Partner Consult LLP dated 02/19/2021, (1 l.).

Two letters from A.N. Strochkov (3 volumes).

Resolution of the Akimat of Nur-Sultan No. 510-891 dated May 18, 2020 (4 l.).

The report of the appraiser Tatenova N.M. dated 07/11/2020 (21 l.).

Two statements to the Mayor of Astana – dated 30.06.2020 and 2.07.2020. (4 liters).

Report on the assessment of the fencing of the land plot dated 07/18/2020 (16 l.).

The exception was the first assessment by independent appraiser Kalinin A.N. dated April 13, 2021, as the original is in the court materials.

 

The third party in the lawsuit, A.E.

 

 

 

 

 

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