Appeal of Actions (Inaction) of Court Bailiffs

Despite the detailed coverage of the issue of filing claims by persons who are not parties to enforcement proceedings in the previously conducted Analysis, disputes continue to arise due to the incorrect determination of the persons participating in cases challenging decisions and actions (inaction) of court bailiffs in the enforcement of an enforcement document.

Pursuant to Article 127 of the Law, a decision or action (inaction) of a court bailiff in enforcing an enforcement document, as well as a refusal to perform such actions, may be appealed to court by the claimant or the debtor. The complaint shall be filed with the court in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on administrative court proceedings.

The range of persons participating in cases challenging decisions and actions (inaction) of court bailiffs in the enforcement of an enforcement document is defined in Article 127 of the Law, and the application of this provision does not give rise to any problematic issues.

The generalization has shown that, in practice, there are cases where claims are filed by persons who are not parties to enforcement proceedings.

For example, NUR-Service Stroy LLP (hereinafter referred to as the “Partnership”) filed a claim with the court against court bailiffs of the territorial body for the enforcement of judicial acts of the city of Kostanay, seeking to have their actions declared unlawful, namely, their refusal to provide access to the enforcement proceedings materials and to the judicial act on the basis of which actions had been taken to inventory and confiscate property for the purpose of transferring the unfinished construction facility “Construction of a Plant for the Recycling of Decommissioned Agricultural Machinery in the City of Kostanay.”

(6001-24-00-6ап/2283).

In the case under consideration, the lower courts concluded that the dispute was not subject to consideration under administrative court proceedings.

The Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan noted that the lower courts had correctly established that the dispute concerned a challenge to ownership rights rather than actions/inaction of officials within public-law relations. Within the framework of administrative court proceedings, administrative acts, actions, and inaction having an “encumbering” character, i.e. directly affecting the rights and freedoms of the claimant, may be challenged.

However, in this case, the court bailiffs acted within the framework of an enforcement document issued by the court and enforced the court judgment ordering the confiscation of property recognized as having been obtained through criminal means. Therefore, the dispute was subject to resolution under civil proceedings by filing a claim for the release of property from seizure in accordance with Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code, or in accordance with the procedure established by the Criminal Procedure Code.

Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code, a dispute concerning a right related to ownership of property against which enforcement has been levied shall be considered by the court under the rules of claim proceedings.

Part 2 of Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that claims for the release of property from seizure (exclusion from the inventory) may be brought by owners or persons possessing property under the right of economic management, operational management, lease, permanent land use, or on another basis provided for by law or contract.

Pursuant to Part 3 of this Article, claims for the release of property from seizure shall be brought against the debtor and the claimant.

Thus, claims for the release of property from seizure and other encumbrances, brought by persons claiming rights to seized property, i.e. asserting a dispute over ownership rights, may only be considered within the framework of civil proceedings.

For example, by a ruling of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of the North Kazakhstan Region in the administrative case concerning the claim of D.A. Shuvaev against Private Court Bailiff S.K. Akzhanov seeking to declare the latter’s inaction unlawful, the claim was returned as not subject to consideration under administrative court proceedings (5994-24-00-4/445).

The court established that, within the framework of enforcement proceedings for the recovery of debt from Individual Entrepreneur S.I. Rakhmatullina in favor of JSC “Freedom Bank Kazakhstan,” the claimant had acquired a residential property and a land plot under a sale and purchase agreement dated August 16, 2024.

The transaction was duly registered with the state.

On June 20, 2025, when applying for the public service “Change of the Designated Purpose of a Land Plot,” the claimant discovered that an encumbrance had been imposed on the real estate by Private Court Bailiff S.K. Akzhanov on August 19, 2024.

Although the claimant applied to the Private Court Bailiff requesting that the seizure be lifted, the latter remained inactive and failed to remove the encumbrance.

It followed from the claimant’s explanations that the purpose of filing the claim was to have the seizure lifted from the real estate belonging to the claimant.

Accordingly, when resolving similar disputes, courts should return the claim, since the matter involves a dispute over a right and is subject to consideration under civil proceedings.

Disputes also arise in relation to:

• enforcement of court decisions on the foreclosure of property with the determination of its initial sale price;
• inclusion in and exclusion from the Debtors’ Register.

Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 21 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mortgage,” when rendering a decision on foreclosure of immovable property pledged under a mortgage agreement, the court shall determine and specify in its decision the initial sale price of the mortgaged immovable property upon its sale.

Pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the Application by Courts of Certain Provisions of Legislation on Enforcement Proceedings,” where there is a court decision that has entered into legal force on foreclosure of pledged property and the court has determined its initial sale price, a new valuation within the framework of enforcement of such court decision is not required. Such claims should be returned pursuant to subparagraph 12) of part 2 of Article 138 of the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code (APPC), since, within the framework of the APPC, debtors challenge the actions of a private court bailiff concerning the sale of property at the value determined by the court.

In the course of enforcing court decisions on foreclosure of pledged property with the determination of its initial sale price, disputes arise as to whether a new valuation is necessary.

The parties to enforcement proceedings argue that, as a rule, a significant period of time has elapsed since the date of the court decision, the value determined by the court is no longer relevant, and the sale of the property at a reduced price would result in a violation of the rights of the parties to the enforcement proceedings.

However, pursuant to Article 21 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, court acts that have entered into legal force are binding upon everyone and are subject to enforcement throughout the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Pursuant to part 4 of Article 241 of the Civil Procedure Code, an enforcement document must contain the operative part of the decision (verbatim).

Thus, a court decision must be enforced strictly in accordance with its wording.

Consequently, there are no grounds or necessity for conducting a new valuation.

At the same time, taking into account the rapid changes in the market value of property, a number of civil courts, when rendering decisions on foreclosure of property, do not specify a particular value, but instead indicate that the property is to be sold at its market value as determined by the private court bailiff at the time of the forced sale. We consider this practice to be more consistent with the interests of the parties.

Some courts also propose amending the above-mentioned paragraph of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court by providing that, if more than one year has passed since the court determined the initial sale price, the property subject to sale must be revalued within the framework of the enforcement proceedings.

We believe that this proposal cannot be implemented without amending Article 21 of the Law “On Mortgage.” In addition, we believe it is necessary to discuss this issue with the judges of the Civil Cases Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Administrative claims are also filed by debtors in enforcement proceedings concerning their inclusion in or exclusion from the Debtors’ Register.

In accordance with Article 36 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, the authorized body maintains the Unified Register of Debtors for the purposes necessary to carry out the tasks related to the compulsory enforcement of enforcement documents. Information on debtors is published on the official internet resource of the authorized body. The Unified Register of Debtors is formed and maintained through the automated information system for enforcement proceedings.

The authorized body responsible for the formation and maintenance of the Register is the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

At the same time, the Unified Register of Debtors is formed and maintained through the automated information system for enforcement proceedings.

Information for inclusion in the Unified Register of Debtors, except for information concerning debtors who have no outstanding debt under enforcement proceedings involving periodic payments for more than three months, as well as information under enforcement documents concerning the adoption and cancellation of interim measures to secure a claim, shall be submitted by court bailiffs within three working days after the commencement of enforcement proceedings.

Paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings provides that the information shall include:

• the surname, first name and patronymic (if any) of the debtor, or the name of the debtor organization;
• the authority that issued the enforcement document, the date of its issuance, and the substance of the debtor’s unfulfilled obligation;
• the surname, first name and patronymic (if any) of the court bailiff submitting the relevant information, as well as the name and address of the territorial department or the address of the private court bailiff’s office.

A debtor shall be excluded from the Unified Register of Debtors:

1. after the termination of enforcement proceedings;
2. where there is no outstanding debt under enforcement proceedings involving periodic payments;
3. after the completion of enforcement proceedings on the grounds provided for by Article 48 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, provided that the debtor has fulfilled the requirements of the enforcement document.

For example, an administrative case considered by the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court concerned the lawfulness of the actions and inaction of a private court bailiff, which, according to the claimant, consisted in the unlawful refusal to cancel compulsory enforcement measures, specifically, the failure to exclude the claimant from the Unified Register of Debtors and the failure to lift the temporary restriction on leaving the Republic of Kazakhstan (6001-23-00-6ап/2315).

In 2018, Private Court Bailiff N.S. Multykbayev, on the basis of the decision of the Medeu District Court of Almaty dated September 7, 2017, commenced enforcement proceedings for the recovery from E.A. Tungushbayev, in favor of JSC “Halyk Savings Bank of Kazakhstan,” of the debt of AMPEX GLOBAL LTD in the amount of KZT 100,000,000 and KZT 3,000,000 in state duty. In order to ensure enforcement of the court act, the private court bailiff applied compulsory enforcement measures. In 2020, due to the impossibility of levying execution because the debtor had no property, the enforcement document was returned to the claimant pursuant to subparagraph 2) of paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Law.

Subsequently, on December 28, 2022, the claimant resubmitted the enforcement document, and the private court bailiff commenced new enforcement proceedings. After the relevant resolution was challenged in court, on March 29, 2023, the claimant and the private court bailiff entered into a mediation agreement, which was approved by the court.

In the course of enforcing this agreement, the private court bailiff cancelled the resolution on the commencement of enforcement proceedings due to the expiry of the period for presenting the enforcement document for enforcement. However, subsequently, on April 26, 2023, the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Almaty City Court overturned the ruling approving the mediation agreement, as a result of which, on May 5, 2023, the private court bailiff resumed the enforcement proceedings.

On March 30, 2023, the claimant applied to the private court bailiff demanding the cancellation of all interim measures previously imposed within the enforcement proceedings and his exclusion from the Unified Register of Debtors. On March 31, 2023, the private court bailiff partially granted the application: the seizure of funds was lifted and restrictions on certain actions were cancelled, but the bailiff refused to cancel the ban on leaving the country and to exclude the claimant from the Debtors’ Register, stating that the enforcement proceedings had not been terminated on the grounds provided for by Articles 47 and 48 of the Law and that the debt owed to the claimant had not been repaid.

Having examined the case materials and the applicable legal provisions, the lower courts found the private court bailiff’s refusal to be lawful, since the cancellation of compulsory enforcement measures, the lifting of the temporary restriction on the debtor’s departure from the country, and the debtor’s exclusion from the Unified Register of Debtors are possible only where the obligations under the enforcement document have been actually fulfilled, the enforcement proceedings have been terminated on the grounds provided for by Article 47 of the Law, or the period for presenting the enforcement document for enforcement has expired, provided that no debt remains outstanding.

The debtor’s status in the Register serves as a public guarantee for ensuring the enforcement of court acts, and maintaining such status until full performance of the obligations or termination of the proceedings is an obligation of the private court bailiff, rather than a discretionary right.

The Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court agreed with the legal position of the lower courts.

Formulation of Claims

When filing an administrative claim challenging the actions (inaction) of court bailiffs, claimants formulate their requests in different ways.

As a rule, disputes within the category under review are considered through claims challenging an administrative act, claims for coercion, and claims for the performance of an action (Articles 132–134 of the APPC).

Pursuant to Article 132 of the APPC, where an encumbering administrative act violates the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of the claimant, the claimant is entitled to file a claim challenging the administrative act, seeking its annulment in full or in part.

Where a claimant disagrees with a resolution issued by a court bailiff, the claim should seek to have that resolution declared unlawful. There is no need to simultaneously file a claim seeking to have the actions declared unlawful.

Pursuant to Part 2 of Article 84 of the APPC, an unlawful administrative act may be annulled in full or in part.

Where a resolution is declared unlawful, the court shall annul the relevant resolution.

Return of a Claim

Part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC provides for 17 grounds for returning an administrative claim.

Cases within the category under review are most frequently returned on the following grounds:

subparagraph 6) of part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC – the claimant has withdrawn the claim filed;

subparagraph 9) of part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC – the parties have entered into a reconciliation agreement, mediation agreement, or an agreement to settle the dispute through a participatory procedure, and such agreement has been approved by the court;

subparagraph 11) of part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC – the case is not subject to consideration under administrative court proceedings;

subparagraph 17) of part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC – the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the particular court.

A further ground for returning a claim is provided for in Part 8 of Article 136 of the APPC. Pursuant to this provision, failure to meet the time limit for filing a claim with the court without a valid reason, as well as the impossibility of restoring the missed time limit for applying to the court, constitutes grounds for returning the claim.

Courts encounter no difficulties in resolving the issue of returning claims in the category under review.

At the same time, the implementation of the principle of the active role of the court has made it possible to significantly increase the number of cases resolved amicably, either through the conclusion of an agreement or the withdrawal of a claim.

Time Limit for Appealing a Court Decision

Part 4 of Article 168 of the APPC provides that an appeal or a prosecutor’s application for appeal in administrative cases challenging the actions (inaction) of court bailiffs may be filed within ten working days from the date on which the decision is rendered in its final form. The decision must be prepared in its final form no later than ten working days from the date of its pronouncement.

Amendments to this provision were introduced on November 21, 2024, pursuant to the implementation of Regulatory Resolution No. 33-NP of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 6, 2023, “On Consideration of the Compliance of the First Paragraph of Part 4 of Article 168 of the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan with the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan.”

As follows from Regulatory Resolution No. 33-NP of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 6, 2023, “On Consideration of the Compliance of the First Paragraph of Part 4 of Article 168 of the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan with the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan,” the provisions of Part 4 of Article 168 of the APPC derive from the provisions of Part 2 of the same Article, which establish the general rules for appealing court decisions that have not yet entered into legal force, with the relevant time limit being calculated from the date on which the court decision is rendered in its final form.

Accordingly, the ten-working-day period established for filing an appeal and a prosecutor’s application for appeal in administrative cases challenging the actions (inaction) of court bailiffs should be calculated from the date on which the decision is rendered (prepared) in its final form. This is because the time limit for filing an appeal established by the APPC (ten working days from the date of the court decision) may, in practice, expire before the decision is prepared in its final form, thereby depriving participants in the proceedings of the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the reasoning of the decision and fully exercise their right to appeal.

The Constitutional Court stated that such legal regulation may restrict the right to judicial protection guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to receive qualified legal assistance, and the principle of equality of all persons before the law and the court.

The Constitutional Court noted that the concepts used in the APPC (“date of rendering the decision,” “date of preparation of the decision in its final form,” etc.) are not sufficiently precise from a legal standpoint and allow for ambiguous interpretation, thereby creating risks of violations of the rights of participants in the proceedings.

As a result, the Constitutional Court recognized the contested provision as being consistent with the Constitution only insofar as the time limit for filing an appeal and a prosecutor’s application for appeal in the categories of administrative cases specified in Part 4 of Article 168 must be calculated not from the moment the operative part of the decision is pronounced, but from the date on which the court decision is rendered (prepared) in its final form.

Prior to the introduction of the above amendments to Part 4 of Article 168 of the APPC, the lower courts had adopted differing interpretations of this provision with regard to calculating the time limit for appealing decisions of courts of first instance.

The Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan confirmed the priority of the constitutional and legal interpretation of procedural rules and established a practice ensuring uniform calculation of the time limits for appellate review — from the date on which the decision is prepared in its final form.

This practice is of systemic importance, as it eliminates inconsistencies in judicial practice and contributes to ensuring that the parties have a genuine opportunity to exercise their right to judicial protection within the framework of administrative court proceedings.

Evidence and Proof

The procedure for the legal regulation of evidence, factual data inadmissible as evidence, the subject matter of proof and sources of evidence, as well as the collection, examination, assessment and use of evidence (proof), and other provisions concerning evidence and proof, shall be determined by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, except for the specific features established by the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code (Article 128 of the APPC).

When appealing against the actions of a Private Court Bailiff in court, various documents and materials confirming violations committed by the Private Court Bailiff may serve as evidence. It is necessary to establish specific facts indicating unlawful actions or inaction.

Evidence (the stitched and numbered enforcement proceedings file) includes:

Enforcement Document:

The original or a certified copy of the writ of execution or court order on the basis of which the Private Court Bailiff acted.

The resolutions of the Private Court Bailiff being challenged, indicating their date and content.

Documents Confirming Violations:

Payment receipts, correspondence with the Private Court Bailiff, notifications (reports on the delivery of SMS notifications), witness statements, property valuation reports, property inventory records, inspection reports, certificates confirming non-residence, photographs, video recordings and any other materials confirming the violation of the applicant's rights and legitimate interests.

Complaints submitted to the justice authorities or to the Chamber of Private Court Bailiffs (where a complaint against the actions of a Private Court Bailiff has been filed, a copy of the complaint and the responses thereto may also be used as evidence).

Witness Statements:

Witnesses who can confirm the circumstances of the case shall be summoned to court to give evidence.

Recovery of the State Duty

Plaintiffs in claims challenging the actions (inaction) of court bailiffs are exempt from payment of the state duty when filing a claim with the court pursuant to subparagraph 15) of Article 616 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Taxes and Other Obligatory Payments to the Budget”.

Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 122 of the APPC, issues concerning the allocation of court costs shall be considered in accordance with the rules of the Civil Procedure Code.

By virtue of Part 1 of Article 117 of the Civil Procedure Code, the state duty from which the plaintiff was exempt, as well as expenses related to the proceedings in the case, shall be recovered from the defendant who is not exempt from payment of court costs, for the benefit of the state, in full or proportionally to the satisfied part of the claim.

Where the claim is satisfied, the state duty payable to the local budget shall be recovered from the court bailiff in proportion to the satisfied part of the claim.

The amount of the state duty shall be calculated in accordance with subparagraph 8) of paragraph 1 of Article 610 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Taxes and Other Obligatory Payments to the Budget” (0.5 monthly calculation index).

Application of Procedural Coercive Measures

Where a violation of the rules of procedural legislation is established during the consideration of a case, procedural coercive measures in the form of a monetary penalty shall be applied.

Pursuant to Article 127 of the APPC, the court shall have the right to impose a monetary penalty on a person who abuses procedural rights or fails to perform procedural duties, including in cases where evidence is submitted or court instructions are performed in violation of the time limit established by the court without valid reasons, if this has resulted in delaying the consideration of an administrative case, in the amount of ten monthly calculation indices for each such action (inaction).

For failure to comply with a requirement or request of the court, failure of a person participating in an administrative case to appear in court, untimely notification of the court, untimely submission of a response, failure to comply with the instructions of the presiding judge at the court hearing, violation of the rules established by the court, as well as other actions (inaction) clearly demonstrating disrespect for the court and/or judge, the court shall have the right to impose a monetary penalty in the amount of twenty monthly calculation indices.

For failure to comply with a court decision or a court ruling approving an agreement between the parties on reconciliation, mediation or settlement of a dispute through a participatory procedure, the court shall impose a monetary penalty on the defendant in the amount of fifty monthly calculation indices, specifying in the same judicial act a period not exceeding one month within which it must be complied with.

During the period under review, the courts developed a practice of applying procedural coercive measures in the form of monetary penalties. In the category of disputes concerning challenges to the actions (inaction) of court bailiffs, monetary penalties were most frequently imposed on defendants for the following reasons:

• untimely submission of a response;
• untimely submission of enforcement proceedings materials;
• submission of enforcement proceedings materials not in full;
• failure to appear at a court hearing (or failure to connect online) without a valid reason.

Abbreviations Used:

• APPC – Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
• CPC – Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
• CC – Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
• Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Court Bailiffs” – Law on Enforcement Proceedings;
• NPR SC – Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
• Rules for the Sale of Seized Property, Including at Auctions in the Form of an Electronic Auction – Rules;
• AIAS – Automated Information and Analytical System of the Judicial Bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Törelik”;
• JCAD SC – Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
• JCAD or the Collegium – Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases;
• IASC – Inter-District Administrative Court;
• DJ – Department(s) of Justice;
• SGB – State Court Bailiff(s);
• PCB – Private Court Bailiff(s);
• EP – Enforcement Proceedings.

The Main Regulatory Legal Acts Governing Enforcement Proceedings Are:

• Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
• APPC;
• CC;
• CPC;
• Law on Enforcement Proceedings;
• Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Appraisal Activity in the Republic of Kazakhstan”;
• Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mediation”;
• Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Marriage (Matrimony) and Family”;
• Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 1 dated March 31, 2017, “On the Application by Courts of Certain Norms of Legislation on Enforcement Proceedings”;
• Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 12 dated December 19, 2003, “On Liability for Non-Execution of Judicial Acts”;
• Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 2 dated January 12, 2009, “On Taking Interim Measures in Civil Cases”;
• Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 5 dated November 29, 2024, “On a Court Decision in Administrative Cases”;
• Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 6 dated November 29, 2019, “On the Application by Courts of Legislation in Considering Cases Related to the Recovery of Alimony”;
• Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 437 dated May 4, 2014, “On Approval of the Amounts of Payment for the Activities of Private Court Bailiffs” (repealed on July 13, 2023);
• Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 372 dated December 24, 2014, “On Approval of the List of Types of Wages and/or Other Income from Which Alimony for the Maintenance of Minor Children Is Withheld”;
• Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 416 dated June 27, 2023, “On Approval of the Amounts of Payment for the Activities of Private Court Bailiffs”;
• Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 148 dated March 28, 2019, “On Approval of Standard Forms of Resolutions of Private Court Bailiffs”.

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