Execution of alimony collection acts / Proper determination of alimony arrears

Paragraph 2 of the Law regulates the procedure for the execution of enforcement documents on the recovery of alimony.

A typical mistake made by bailiffs when executing executive documents on the recovery of alimony is:

- inaction (failure to take real measures)      when executing the executive document;

- incorrect calculation of alimony arrears;

- incorrect assessment of the fulfillment/non-fulfillment of obligations to pay monthly payments.

In accordance with article 99 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, if it is impossible to collect alimony payments from wages or other income within three months, the bailiff issues a resolution on determining the debt and takes measures to ensure the execution of enforcement documents in accordance with Article 32 of this Law and forecloses on the debtor's property, except for property that cannot be A penalty has been levied in accordance with Article 61 of this Law.

The amount of alimony arrears is determined by the bailiff at the place of execution of the decision based on the actual salary (income) received by the debtor during the time during which the recovery was not carried out, or received by him at the time the debt was determined, at the option of the recoverer. If the debtor did not work during this period or documents confirming his earnings and other income have not been submitted, the alimony arrears are determined based on the average monthly salary in the Republic of Kazakhstan at the time of debt collection.

The Law and the 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 is withheld for the maintenance of minor children" defines an exhaustive list of types of income from which alimony is collected.

Thus, items 7 and 11 of the specified list relate to the income of a parent who is obliged to pay alimony, income received for work performed, services provided under civil law contracts that are not of a one-time nature; from engaging in entrepreneurial activity without forming a legal entity.

In this category, the actions of the bailiff to determine the debt are most often disputed, where individual entrepreneurs and the founders of the LLP are debtors by the nature of their work.

Determining debts by these categories of debtors is the most problematic for bailiffs, as a result, bailiffs often make mistakes.

For example, the debtor Tkachenko V.A. challenged the decision of the CHSI Salykov A.K. on the determination of debt. It was established from the information of the tax authority that the debtor was registered as an individual entrepreneur and applied a special tax regime based on a simplified declaration. Income is confirmed by simplified declarations for small businesses of form 910.00. The plaintiff, who is an individual entrepreneur, is subject to a special tax regime based on a simplified declaration (report on form 910.00), while it is possible to determine the amount of income minus the expenses incurred by the individual entrepreneur provided that the generally established taxation procedure is applied to the taxpayer, rather than a simplified one. However, it has been reliably established that the plaintiff does not apply the generally established taxation procedure in the conduct of business activities, and accounting is not maintained.

Chapter 6 of the Methodological Recommendations on the execution of executive documents on the recovery of alimony, approved by the Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 31, 2017 No. 345, stipulates that the calculation of the amount of alimony and debt owed by individual entrepreneurs is based on the tax regime chosen by the taxpayer, based on the information reflected in the declaration. Bailiffs are recommended to determine income or alimony arrears based on the total income indicated in the patent or simplified declaration, the expenses incurred by the sole proprietor are not indicated in them.

By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 681 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and Other Mandatory Payments to the Budget (Tax Code)", the object of taxation for a taxpayer applying a special tax regime based on a patent, simplified declaration or using a special mobile application is income received during the tax period.

According to subparagraph 1) of paragraph 9 of the Tax Reporting Rules "Simplified Declaration for Small Businesses (Form 910.00)", approved by Order No. 39 of the First Deputy Prime Minister-Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan - Minister of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 20, 2020, in the section "Tax calculation" in line 910.00.001, income is indicated, determined in accordance with in accordance with Article 681 of the Tax Code, subject to adjustments made in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 681 of the Tax Code.

Accordingly, for tax purposes, for a taxpayer applying a special tax regime based on a simplified declaration, the object is income (excluding expenses) received during the tax period.

From a systematic analysis of the above-mentioned norms, it follows that for taxpayers applying a special tax regime based on a simplified declaration, income is all income reflected by the taxpayer in tax reports.

Consequently, the absence of reflected information on the amount of income, taking into account the expenses incurred (in the absence of accounting), does not allow the bailiff to determine the amount of arrears in alimony payments from the actual income.

By the Regulatory Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 28, 2024 No. 46-NP "On reviewing for compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan subparagraph 11) of paragraph 1 of the List of types of wages and (or) other income from which alimony is withheld for the maintenance of minor children, approved by the order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 24, 2014

No. 372", the specified sub-item of the List is recognized as corresponding to the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Paragraph 3 of the Regulatory Resolution states that the Methodological Recommendations establish as the calculation basis for calculating the amount of alimony and arrears owed by individual entrepreneurs the information reflected in the tax return (for individual entrepreneurs), the simplified declaration (for entrepreneurs with a simplified tax regime), and the calculation of the patent (for entrepreneurs based on the patent) (paragraph 6).

The tax return, filled out by the entrepreneur himself or his representative (paragraph 2 of Article 204 of the Tax Code), allows you to determine the amount that he has the right to dispose of. This correlates with the provision of article 94 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Enforcement Proceedings that the amount of deductions is calculated from the amount of the debtor's salary (income) due to him.

In addition, the legislator provides that in cases where the recovery of alimony in proportion to the earnings and (or) other income of a parent is impossible, difficult or significantly violates the interests of one of the parties, the court has the right to determine the amount of alimony collected monthly in a fixed amount of money or both in shares and in a fixed amount of money. Such cases include the recovery of alimony from parents who have irregular, changing earnings and/or other income, or if the parent receives earnings and/or other income in whole or in part in kind (paragraph 1 of Article 141 of the KBS). A person who believes that his interests have been significantly violated in the calculation of alimony is not limited in the right to appeal to the court, which, when evaluating the relevant evidence, is authorized to distinguish between expenses directly related to the implementation and development of business activities and other payments that do not affect the amount of alimony obligations.

In this case, the court is understood to be a court of civil jurisdiction, which is authorized to resolve a dispute on alimony on the merits, and not the SMAS.

The SMAS of the Akmola region has reliably established that when issuing the contested resolution, the CSI lawfully took into account that the deduction is made from income from entrepreneurial activities.

The SCAD of the Supreme Court established the legality of the approach applied by the defendant in calculating the debt of an individual entrepreneur using a simplified taxation regime, by Resolutions No. 6001- 23-00-6ap/206 dated October 19, 2023, and No. 6001-23-00-6ap/3019 dated May 21, 2024.

According to the claim of Romanek G.G. to CHSI Saimenov R.B. for recognition as illegal and cancellation of the resolution on the determination of alimony arrears dated June 13, 2024 (6001-24-00-6ap/3559).

On June 13, 2024, the CHSI issued a contested resolution on the determination of debt for the period from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022 in the amount of KZT 11,084,440, the debt was determined from income from entrepreneurial activity, taking into account expenses. The plaintiff, challenging the resolution on debt determination, points out that the defendant unlawfully determined the debt without taking into account expenses, losses from business activities and alimony payments. The court found that the plaintiff did not apply the generally established taxation procedure in carrying out business activities, and did not keep accounting records.

By the decision of the SMAS dated August 1, 2024, the claim was denied, due to the fact that it is possible to determine the amount of income minus the incurred expenses of the individual entrepreneur indicated in the claim, provided that the generally established taxation procedure is applied to the taxpayer, and not simplified. The plaintiff appealed the decision, disagreeing with it.

By the decisions of the SCAD of the Kostanay Regional Court and the SCAD of the Supreme Court, the decision of the court of first instance remained unchanged.

Thus, the above examples demonstrate the correct approach to resolving these disputes.

Other examples for determining alimony arrears: by a court order of the Ust-Kamenogorsk City Court of the East Kazakhstan region dated January 30, 2009, alimony payments were collected from Ryabicheva D.V. in favor of Sikidina O.I. for the maintenance of a minor child Ryabicheva M. D. born on August 16, 2008, in the amount of 1/4 of earnings and other income monthly, starting from January 27, 2009 until reaching the age of majority (6394-25-00-4/324).

By a court ruling dated January 14, 2025, O.I. Sikidina was issued a duplicate of the court order.

On February 14, 2025, CHSI Eleusizov D.K. initiated enforcement proceedings based on the claimant's statement of February 4, 2025 and a court order.

On February 18, 2025, the recoverer applied to the CSI with a statement on the calculation of alimony arrears from February 18, 2022 to February 18, 2025.

On February 18, 2025, the bailiff issued a resolution requesting information on the balance and movement of money in the debtor's individual pension accounts and sent it to the authorized body.

On April 29, 2025, a resolution was issued on the determination of alimony arrears for the period from February 18, 2022 to February 18, 2025 in the amount of 3,153,622 tenge.

The defendant also took enforcement measures.

On May 5, 2025, the debtor's representative addressed the CSI with a request to cancel the above-mentioned resolution.

On May 8, 202, the CSI provided a response on the need to provide evidence of the child's residence with the debtor.

On May 15, 2025, the CSU provided a response on the refusal to cancel the above-mentioned resolution due to the failure to provide evidence of alimony payment.

The plaintiff appealed to the court with a claim for recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision on determining the alimony arrears, arguing that he did not agree with the amount of the debt, the statute of limitations was violated when the contested decision was issued, the child lived with the plaintiff's mother A.I. Lutsenko from birth until her death, and was fully supported by the plaintiff. The debtor appealed to the CHSI to cancel the contested resolution, but was refused.

The plaintiff challenged the decision, believing that the time limit for submitting the court order had expired, and his daughter lived with him.

According to paragraph 1 of article 27 of the Constitution, childhood is protected by the State, and the care and upbringing of children are the natural right and responsibility of parents.

Paragraph 1 of article 66 and paragraph 1 of Article 138 of the Marriage Code prescribe corresponding rights and obligations, the right of a child to receive maintenance from his parents and the obligation of parents to support their minor children. According to paragraphs 1, 2 of article 4 of the Law on the Rights of the Child, all children have equal rights regardless of origin, race and nationality, social and property status, gender, language, education, attitude to religion, place of residence, health status and other circumstances concerning the child and his parents or other legal representatives; equal and children born both in and out of marriage enjoy comprehensive protection.

By virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 169 of the Marriage Code, the amount of alimony arrears paid for minor children in accordance with Article 139 of this Code is determined by the bailiff based on the salary and other income of the person obligated to pay alimony for the period during which alimony was not collected. In cases where the person obligated to pay alimony did not work during this period or if documents confirming his salary and other income are not provided, monthly payments and (or) alimony arrears are determined based on the average monthly salary in the Republic of Kazakhstan at the time of debt collection.

According to article 169 of the Marriage Code, the recovery of alimony for the past period on the basis of an agreement on the payment of alimony or on the basis of an enforcement document is carried out within the three-year period preceding the presentation of the enforcement document, or an agreement on the payment of alimony provided for in Article 158 of this Code.

As part of the consideration of the administrative case, the court verified the calculation of alimony arrears and the recovery period.

The calculation was made taking into account the average salary in the Republic of Kazakhstan and the debtor's salary for September and October 2022, confirmed by an extract from an individual pension account. The debtor has not provided any other evidence of official employment.

Also, the plaintiff's side did not provide evidence of voluntary payment of alimony for the period from February 18, 2022 to February 18, 2025, and there was no agreement on voluntary payment of alimony between the claimant and the debtor.

The court took into account that the calculation was made within the three-year period preceding the presentation of the enforcement document, which complies with the requirements of Article 169 of the Code.

In view of the above, the court concluded that the calculation of the debt was carried out correctly and complies with the requirements of article 99 of the Law.

The arguments of the plaintiff's side about the child's residence from birth to the present with the father were not accepted by the court and refuted by the materials of the administrative case.

The court also took into account the debtor's negative attitude towards a minor child, which is confirmed by screenshots of correspondence and a civil lawsuit challenging the will in relation to the daughter.

Taking into account the interests of a minor child who has the right to a standard of living and conditions necessary for full development, as well as the plaintiff's obligation to maintain it, the court concluded that there were no grounds for satisfying the claim, since there were no violations of the plaintiff's rights by the defendant when determining the disputed debt, and the actions of the civil Part 3 of Article 99 of the Law.

Another example, in the administrative case on the claim of Zdorovikhin D.A. to CHSI Syzdykova R.E., the actions of a private bailiff to determine debt were recognized as illegal. HSI determined the alimony arrears, the calculation was made from the average monthly salary in the Republic of Kazakhstan (5994-24-00-4/762).

During the consideration of the case by the court, it was reliably established that the plaintiff is unemployed, which was confirmed by the card of the person registered as unemployed. The social security payment was set for a period of 6 months. In addition, the plaintiff contacted the CSI and informed him that he was officially a member of the labor exchange and was receiving unemployment benefits, which he sent for alimony. Therefore, the court agreed with the plaintiff's arguments that the amount of debt was unduly determined without taking into account social benefits.

The court's decision was not appealed and entered into force.

When considering this category of disputes, it is necessary to take into account the interests of minor children whose maintenance payments have been forcibly collected.

When assessing evidence of the fulfillment of alimony obligations, it should be taken into account:

- the source of the receipt of monetary amounts (the alimony payer or a third party);

- the frequency and regularity of the receipt of amounts;

- the same amount of transferred amounts;

- the presence of other monetary obligations between the parents (credit obligations, debt obligations, etc.);

- the proportionality of the transferred amounts to the debtor's income.

For example, in the case of Evstafiev S.M.'s lawsuit against CHSI Akhmetov R.M. for recognition as illegal and cancellation of the resolution on the determination of alimony arrears (6001-24-00-6ap/994).

CHSI Akhmetov R. based on the claimant's application, a resolution was issued to determine the alimony arrears for the period from November 9, 2021 to October 10, 2023, in the amount of 831,217 tenge.

Having disagreed with the resulting debt, the plaintiff appealed to the court, arguing that he had no other income except pension payments, and the late filing of a writ of execution by the recoverer.

By the decision of the SMAS of Kostanay region dated December 12, 2023, the claim was denied. At the same time, the court pointed out that the CSI has the right to determine the alimony arrears from income received in the form of pension payments, executive documents issued on the basis of decisions on the recovery of periodic payments in cases of alimony recovery remain valid for the entire time for which payments were awarded, documents and evidence of voluntary repayment of alimony by the debtor in the period from November 2021 to October 2023 is not available.

By the decisions of the SCAD Regional Court, SCAD VS, the decision of the SMAS was upheld.

The following example is based on the claim of Sakenov M.M. to CHSI Nurmagambetov S.S. for recognition as illegal and cancellation of the resolution on the determination of alimony arrears dated December 13, 2023 (3994-23-00-4/1124).

The defendant determined the alimony arrears, the calculation was made on the basis of information provided by the UGD on the income of IP Sakenova A.P. (plaintiff's spouse). Having disagreed with the settlement, the debtor appealed to the court. The court found that the defendant's alimony arrears were determined from income received not by the plaintiff himself, but by his spouse, who is not the parent of a minor child, and is also not one of the participants in the enforcement proceedings.

By the decision of the SMAS dated January 22, 2024, the claim was satisfied, the decision on the determination of alimony arrears was declared illegal and canceled.

According to the claim of Semkin M.A. to CHSI Tsymbal I.V. for recognition as illegal and cancellation of the resolution on the determination of alimony arrears dated April 4, 2024 (3994-24-00-4/336).

CHSI Tsymbal I.V. by a resolution dated April 4, 2024, determined the debt in the amount of 1,203,4084 tenge for the period from April 2023 to March 2024. The plaintiff does not agree with the ruling, the CSI provided all the transfers to the claimant. The CSI took into account the amount of 225,000 tenge, the remaining amount was given by the debtor to the child for meals in the school cafeteria, payment for transportation, payment for school, purchase of clothes. As a result, the amount of debt amounted to 987,484 tenge, which the plaintiff does not agree with.

By the decision of the SMAS of May 13, 2024, which entered into force, the claim was denied in full, on the grounds that the debtor's purchase of clothes for the child, as well as payments for school, school meals, and transportation for the child, does not relate to alimony payments, but is the discretion and will of the parent satisfying other needs of his the child.

In the administrative case on the claim of Borisova S.I. to CHSI Khusnutdinova E.K. for recognition as illegal and cancellation of the resolution on debt determination and the obligation to issue a resolution on debt determination, CHSI determined the alimony arrears in the amount of 0 tenge.

The court found that the decision to determine the debt in the amount of 0 tenge was made without an introductory part, that is, without specifying the basis of the decision and calculation.

In addition, the contested resolution was not included in the materials of the enforcement proceedings.

The court, satisfying the claim, noted in the decision that when appealing decisions on debt determination, the correctness of the bailiff's calculation is subject to verification, the court does not assume the functions of the CSI and does not determine the amount of debt. (№5994-25-00-4/353)

Formulation of requirements

When filing an administrative claim to appeal against the actions (inaction) of bailiffs, the plaintiffs state the claims in various versions.

Basically, disputes in the generalized category are dealt with by filing claims for challenge, coercion, and commission of actions (Articles 132-134 of the CPC).

By virtue of article 132 of the CPC, if an encumbering administrative act violates the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the plaintiff, he has the right to file a challenge claim demanding that the administrative act be revoked in full or in any part thereof.

In case of disagreement with the decision issued by the bailiff, the demands are made to declare this decision illegal. Simultaneous filing of a claim for recognition of actions as illegal is not required.

In accordance with part 2 of Article 84 of the CPC, an illegal administrative act may be repealed in whole or in part.

If the decision is declared illegal, the court cancels the said decision.

Claim refund

Part 2 of Article 138 of the CPC provides 17 grounds for the return of an administrative claim.

Cases in this category are most often returned for the following reasons:

subclause 6) of part 2 of Article 138 of the APPC - the plaintiff withdrew the filed claim;

9) of part 2 of Article 138 of the CPC - the parties have concluded an agreement on reconciliation, mediation or dispute settlement through a participatory procedure, and it has been approved by the court;

11) of part 2 of Article 138 of the CPC - the case is not subject to consideration in administrative proceedings;

17) of part 2 of Article 138 of the CPC - the case is beyond the jurisdiction of this court.

Also, the basis for returning a claim is provided for in part 8 of Article 136 of the CPC, according to which skipping the deadline for filing a lawsuit without a valid reason, as well as the inability to restore the missed deadline for filing a lawsuit, are grounds for returning the claim.

The courts do not have any difficulties in resolving the issue of the return of claims in the analyzed category.

At the same time, the implementation of the principle of the active role of the court has significantly increased the number of cases resolved peacefully (concluding an agreement or withdrawing a claim).

The time limit for appealing a court decision

The fourth part of Article 168 of the CPC stipulates that an appeal, a petition from the prosecutor for administrative cases to challenge the actions (inaction) of bailiffs may be filed within ten working days from the date of the final decision, which is made no later than ten working days from the date of the announcement of the decision. Amendments to this provision were made on 11/21/2024, in the implementation of the resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 6, 2023 No. 33-NP "On the review of paragraph one of Part Four of Article 168 of the CPC for compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan".

As follows from the regulatory resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 6, 2023 No. 33-NP "On reviewing for compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan paragraph one of Part four of Article 168 of the APPC", the provisions of part four of Article 168 of the APPC are derived from the norms of part two of this article, which define the general rules of appeal not entered into force court decisions, calculated from the date of the final court decision.

In this regard, the period of ten working days provided for filing appeals and petitions of the prosecutor for administrative cases to challenge the actions (inaction) of bailiffs should be calculated from the date of the final decision, since the deadline set by the APPC for filing an appeal (ten working days from the date of the court decision) In fact, it may expire before the decision is made in its final form., this deprives the participants of the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the motivational part of the process and fully exercise the right to appeal.

The Constitutional Court pointed out that such regulation may limit the constitutionally guaranteed right to judicial protection, qualified legal assistance and the principle of equality of all before the law and the court.

The Constitutional Court noted that the concepts used in the APPC ("the day of the decision", "the day of the final decision", etc.) are not legally precise enough and allow for ambiguous interpretation, creating risks of violating the rights of participants in the process.

As a result, the Constitutional Court recognized the contested provision as consistent with the Constitution only in the interpretation that the time limit for filing an appeal and a prosecutor's appeal motion in the categories of administrative cases specified in part four of Article 168 should be calculated not from the moment the operative part was announced, but from the date of the final court decision.

Prior to the introduction of the above-mentioned amendments to part 4 of Article 168 of the CPC, local courts allowed for a different interpretation of this rule in terms of calculating the time limit for appealing a decision of the court of first instance.

The SCAD of the Supreme Court confirmed the priority of the constitutional and legal interpretation of procedural norms and consolidated the practice ensuring a uniform calculation of the time limits for appeal — from the date of the final decision.

This practice is of systemic importance, as it eliminates contradictions in judicial practice and helps ensure that the parties have a real opportunity to exercise their right to judicial protection in the framework of administrative proceedings.

Evidence and proof

The procedure for the legal regulation of evidence, factual data that is not acceptable as evidence, the subject of proof and sources of evidence, as well as the collection, research, evaluation and use of evidence (evidence) and other provisions on evidence and evidence are determined by the norms of the CPC, with the exception of the specifics established by the CPC (Article 128 of the CPC).

When appealing the actions of the CSI to the court, various documents and materials confirming violations by the CSI can serve as evidence. It is necessary to establish specific facts indicating illegal actions or omissions.

The evidence (enforcement proceedings, laced and numbered) includes:

Executive document:

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

The decisions of the Civil Court, which are being appealed, with an indication of the date and content.

Documents confirming violations:

Payment receipts, correspondence with the CSI, notices (SMS notification delivery reports), witness statements, property assessment reports, property inventory reports, inspection reports, non-residence certificates, photographs, videos and any other materials confirming the violation of the applicant's rights and legitimate interests.

Complaints to the judicial authorities or the Chamber of the CSI (if a complaint is filed against the actions of the CSI, a copy and responses to it can also be used as evidence)

Witness statements:

Witnesses who can confirm the circumstances of the case are called to court to testify.

Collection of state duty

Plaintiffs in claims against the actions (inaction) of bailiffs from paying the state fee when filing a claim with the court are exempt in accordance with subparagraph 15) of Article 616 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and other mandatory payments to the budget."

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 122 of the CPC, issues related to the allocation of court costs are considered according to the rules of the CPC.

By virtue of part 1 of Article 117 of the CPC, the state fee from which the plaintiff was exempt, as well as the costs associated with the proceedings, are collected from the defendant, who is not exempt from paying court costs, to the state's income in full or in proportion to the satisfied part of the claim.

Upon satisfaction of the claim, the state fee to the local budget revenue is subject to collection from the bailiff in proportion to the satisfied part of the claim.

The state duty rate is calculated according to the rules of subparagraph 8) of paragraph 1 of Article 610 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and other mandatory payments to the budget" (0.5 MCI).

Application of procedural coercion measures

In the event of a violation of the norms of procedural legislation, when considering a case, measures of procedural coercion are applied in the form of imposing a monetary penalty.

In accordance with article 127 of the CPC, the court has the right to impose a monetary penalty on a person who abuses procedural rights or fails to perform procedural duties, including in cases of presenting evidence, executing orders in violation of the time limit set by the court without valid reasons, if this led to a delay in the consideration of an administrative case, for each action (inaction) in the amount of ten monthly calculation indices.

For failure to comply with a requirement or a court request, failure to appear in court of a person participating in an administrative case, late notification of the court, late submission of a review, disobedience to the orders of the presiding judge, violation of the rules established in court, as well as other actions (omissions) clearly indicating disrespect for the court and (or) the judge, the court has the right to impose a monetary penalty in the amount of twenty monthly calculation indices.

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

During the analyzed period, the courts have developed the practice of applying a measure of procedural coercion in the form of imposing a monetary penalty. In the category of disputes concerning the appeal of actions (inaction) of bailiffs, monetary penalties were most often imposed on defendants for the following reasons:

late provision of feedback;

non-timely provision of enforcement proceedings;

provision of enforcement proceedings not in full;

failure to appear (or not connect online) at a court hearing without a valid reason.

Abbreviations used:

· APPC - Administrative Procedural Code

· The Republic of Kazakhstan;

· CPC - The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

· Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan - Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

· The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Enforcement Proceedings and the status of Bailiffs" - the Law on Enforcement Proceedings;

· NP VS - The normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

·       Rules for the sale of seized property, including at auction in the form of an electronic auction - Rules;

· AIAS          -           Automated information and analytical system of judicial authorities of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Torelik";

· SCAD VS - Judicial Board for administrative cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

· SCAD or collegium - judicial collegium for administrative cases;

· SMAS - specialized interdistrict administrative Court;

· DU - Department(s) of Justice;

· GSI - State bailiff(s);

· CSI is a private bailiff(s).

· IP - enforcement proceedings

The main regulatory legal acts regulating the issues of enforcement proceedings are:

·       The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

· APPC;

· GC;

· GPC;

· The Law on Enforcement Proceedings;

· The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Evaluation activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan";

· The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Mediation";

·       The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Marriage and Family";

· NP of the Supreme Court of March 31, 2017 No. 1 "On the application by courts of certain norms of legislation on enforcement proceedings";

· NP of the Supreme Court of December 19, 2003 No. 12 "On liability for non-enforcement of judicial acts";

· NP of the Supreme Court of January 12, 2009 No. 2 "On the adoption of interim measures in civil cases";

· NP of the Supreme Council of November 29, 2024 No. 5 "On judicial decision on administrative cases";

· NP of the Supreme Court of November 29, 2019 No. 6 "On the application of legislation by courts when considering cases related to the recovery of alimony";

·       Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 4, 2014 No. 437 "On approval of the amount of payment for the activities of a private bailiff" (expired on July 13, 2023);

·       Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 24, 2014 No. 372 "On approval of the List of types of wages and (or) other income from which alimony is deducted for the maintenance of minor children";

·       Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 27, 2023 No. 416 "On approval of the amount of payment for the activities of a private bailiff";

·       Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 28, 2019 No. 148 "On approval of Standard Forms of Decisions of private 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