Inheritance in a Peasant or Farm Enterprise
Under Article 1082 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, upon the death of a member of a peasant or farm enterprise, the inheritance shall be opened in accordance with the general rules of succession. The heirs are entitled to receive monetary compensation proportionate to the deceased's share in the common ownership of the property.
By the Ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Zhetisu Regional Court dated 17 June 2025, the judgment of the Eskeldi District Court dated 15 April 2025, which dismissed the claim of H., the head of the "X" Peasant Farm, against notaries K. and N. of the Zhetisu Regional Notarial District seeking to declare the certificates of inheritance by law invalid, was overturned.
In support of its conclusions, the appellate court held that the notary had incorrectly determined the composition of the estate, since the right of land use to the disputed land plot belonged to the peasant farm. Consequently, the issuance of the contested certificate of inheritance resulted in a violation of the farm's rights.
The appellate court's conclusions were correct. However, the claim was considered on its merits against improper defendants—the notaries—whereas the proper defendants should have been the heirs who had received the certificate of inheritance in respect of the disputed land plot.
General Provisions
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Normative Resolution, when resolving inheritance disputes, courts must apply the legislation in force on the date the inheritance was opened.
A new law introducing amendments or additions to the previous legal framework governing inheritance shall apply only to those rights and obligations arising after the law enters into force.
As explained in the previous judicial review, from 1 July 1999, when the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Special Part) entered into force, the previously existing procedure for accepting an inheritance was substantially changed.
Under Article 542 of the Civil Code of the Kazakh SSR, which remained in force until 1 July 1999, an heir was required to accept the inheritance in order to acquire it.
An heir was deemed to have accepted the inheritance if he or she had actually taken possession of or assumed management of the inherited property, or had submitted an application for acceptance of the inheritance to the state notarial office at the place where the inheritance was opened.
These actions had to be performed within six months from the date the inheritance was opened.
With the entry into force of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Special Part) on 1 July 1999, the rules governing acceptance of inheritance were fundamentally revised. A presumption of acceptance of inheritance was introduced, meaning that an heir acquired the right to the inherited property from the moment the inheritance was opened, unless he or she subsequently renounced the inheritance, was deprived of the right to inherit, or lost such right as a result of a testamentary appointment being declared invalid.
From 3 February 2007, the previous procedure for accepting an inheritance was reinstated by the Law "On Amendments and Additions to the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (General and Special Parts)" dated 12 January 2007.
In certain cases, courts fail to take into account that disputes must be resolved under the legislation in force on the date the inheritance was opened.
By the judgment of the Mugalzhar District Court of Aktobe Region dated 16 May 2024, the claim filed by G.V.V. against the State Institution "Office of the Akim of Kandyagash, Mugalzhar District, Aktobe Region" seeking restoration of the time limit for accepting the inheritance and recognition as having accepted the inheritance was granted. The case was not reviewed on appeal.
According to the case materials, the deceased, G.V.N., died on 13 December 2000, during the period when the presumption of acceptance of inheritance was in force. However, when the claimant applied to notary K. of the Aktobe Notarial District for a certificate of inheritance, the application was refused on the grounds that the statutory period for accepting the inheritance had allegedly expired.
Such errors are systemic in nature. The lack of knowledge of the law by certain notaries results in citizens being compelled to bring unjustified claims before the courts. By failing to put an end to the unlawful actions of notaries, the courts contribute to the continued violation of citizens' rights.
Courts should also bear in mind that the circle of heirs is determined in accordance with the legislation in force at the time the inheritance was opened.
Under the Civil Code of the Kazakh SSR, there were only three statutory orders of heirs. From 1 July 1999, the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan established six statutory orders of heirs, and from 3 February 2007, the categories of heirs were revised once again.
During the period from 1 July 1999 to 3 February 2007, the Civil Code did not provide for the legal institution of hereditary transmission (transmissio hereditatis). From 3 February 2007, the rules governing inheritance by right of representation were also amended.
Accordingly, because the legal regulation of inheritance has varied over different periods, courts must apply the substantive law that was in force on the date the inheritance was opened.
If this translation is intended for publication, a judicial review, or use by the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan, I can also prepare it in formal legal English consistent with common law legal drafting and international legal translation standards.
Jurisdiction
Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (CPC), civil cases arising out of inheritance legal relations are subject to the following rules of jurisdiction.
Part 3 of Article 31 of the CPC establishes the exclusive jurisdiction over claims concerning the recognition of an heir as unworthy, the recognition of an estate as escheat, the restoration of the time limit for accepting an inheritance, and the extension of the time limit for renouncing an inheritance.
The above-mentioned claims shall be considered by the court at the place where the inheritance was opened.
The previous judicial review addressed the issue of jurisdiction over claims for the restoration of the time limit for accepting an inheritance due to the inconsistency between paragraph 12 of the Normative Resolution and Part 3 of Article 31 of the CPC. Until the relevant amendments are made to the Normative Resolution, courts are advised to be guided by the provisions of the CPC. Accordingly, claims seeking the restoration of the time limit for accepting an inheritance or the extension of the time limit for renouncing an inheritance must be filed with the court at the place where the inheritance was opened.
Pursuant to Article 1043 of the Civil Code (CC), the place where the inheritance is opened is the deceased's last place of residence, and where such place is unknown, the location of the inherited property or the principal part thereof.
By the ruling of the Aksu District Court of Zhetisu Region dated 23 October 2024, the claim filed by A.T. against O. and others seeking restoration of the time limit for accepting an inheritance was unjustifiably returned on the ground that the case did not fall within the jurisdiction of that court. The court based its decision on the fact that the deceased, A.M., had been registered in the city of Taldykorgan.
By the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Zhetisu Regional Court dated 10 December 2024, the ruling of the court of first instance was set aside, and the claim was remitted to the same court for consideration.
According to the Information Exchange System of the Law Enforcement and Special Authorities (SIO PSO), the deceased A.M. had been registered during his lifetime in the village of Zhansugurov, Aksu District. The police authorities provided the same information regarding the deceased's last place of residence. Furthermore, a residential house located at the above address was registered in A.M.'s ownership.
Part 2 of Article 31 of the CPC establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of claims brought by the creditors of the deceased against the heirs or the executor of the will (trust manager of the estate). Such claims shall be filed at the location of the inherited property in accordance with the rules established by Part 1 of this Article, namely, the rules governing jurisdiction over immovable property.
Where the inherited estate consists solely of movable property (bank deposits, a share in the charter capital of a business partnership, cooperative units, etc.), creditors' claims are subject to the general rule of jurisdiction, namely, the court at the defendant's place of residence.
Disputes concerning the protection of the inheritance rights of minor children are, pursuant to Part 3 of Article 27 of the CPC, within the jurisdiction of the Specialized Inter-District Juvenile Courts.
In certain cases, courts have unjustifiably transferred cases to the Specialized Juvenile Courts.
By the ruling of the Kyzylorda City Court dated 2 October 2024, the claim filed by I. against A. seeking recognition of the statement renouncing the inheritance as unlawful and invalidation of the certificate of inheritance was transferred to the Specialized Inter-District Juvenile Court of Kyzylorda Region on the grounds that the defendant owed child support arrears to the claimant for the maintenance of minor children.
The appellate panel disagreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance, set aside the ruling, and remitted the case to the same court for consideration on the merits, noting that the claim had not been brought in the interests of minors, who were not heirs of the deceased.
The general rule of territorial jurisdiction (the defendant's place of residence) applies to all other disputes arising from inheritance rights, including claims for invalidation of a will or a certificate of inheritance, except for certificates relating to rights to immovable property.
By the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the North Kazakhstan Regional Court dated 13 February 2025, the ruling of the Gabit Musrepov District Court dated 16 January 2025, returning the claim filed by a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) against S. and F. seeking invalidation of the certificate of inheritance by law, was set aside.
In returning the claim, the court of first instance held that the claimant was a legal entity, defendant S. was registered as an individual entrepreneur (IE), and the dispute concerned the share of participants in common shared ownership within a farming enterprise, indicating the existence of a corporate dispute falling within the jurisdiction of the Specialized Inter-District Economic Court (SIDEC).
The appellate panel found these conclusions unfounded, noting that defendant S. was neither a participant in the LLP or the farming enterprise, nor its current or former director. Consequently, the conclusion that the dispute was corporate in nature was inconsistent with Article 27 of the CPC. S.'s status as an individual entrepreneur was irrelevant for determining the jurisdiction of the Specialized Inter-District Economic Court, since the LLP's claim concerned the validity of the defendant's title document as a private individual.
Pursuant to Article 307 of the CPC, an application for the establishment of a legally significant fact shall be filed with the court at the applicant's place of residence, except for applications seeking the establishment of the existence of documents confirming ownership, use and (or) disposal of immovable property, which shall be filed with the court at the location of the immovable property.
By the judgment of the Taraz City Court of Zhambyl Region dated 6 December 2024, the application of L.T. for establishment of the legally significant fact of the place where the inheritance was opened was granted. The place where the inheritance was opened following the death of L.S., who died on 24 October 1999, was determined to be the city of Taraz.
The application to the court resulted from the notary S.'s ruling dated 11 October 2024, refusing to issue the applicant a certificate of inheritance following the death of her spouse and recommending that she apply to the court to determine the place where the inheritance was opened, since the deceased spouse had not been registered at the location of the inherited property (an apartment in Taraz) and had previously been removed from the register.
In this case, the notary unjustifiably refused to issue the certificate of inheritance because, pursuant to Article 1043 of the Civil Code, the place where the inheritance is opened is the deceased's last place of residence, and where such place is unknown, the location of the inherited property or its principal part. Therefore, the court had no legal grounds to grant the application.
A., residing in the city of Almaty, applied to the court seeking the establishment of two legally significant facts: her kinship with her grandmother U., and the fact of acceptance of the inheritance opened after U.'s death in the city of Khromtau, Aktobe Region.
By the ruling of the Khromtau District Court dated 2 August 2024, A.'s application was returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction with reference to Article 307 of the CPC.
Referring to Article 31 of the CPC, the appellate court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance, noting that the deceased had owned immovable property.
Subsequently, by the ruling of the Khromtau District Court dated 23 October 2024, the proceedings concerning the claim for establishment of the fact of acceptance of the inheritance were left without consideration following the withdrawal of the application pursuant to subparagraph 8) of Article 279 of the CPC.
By the judgment dated 28 October 2024, A.'s application for the establishment of the fact of kinship was granted.
The analytical review prepared by the Aktobe Regional Court questioned whether the case had been properly considered in Aktobe Region from the standpoint of territorial jurisdiction, since Article 307 of the CPC provides that applications for the establishment of legally significant facts are to be filed at the applicant's place of residence, with the sole exception being applications concerning the existence of documents confirming ownership, use and (or) disposal of immovable property, which are to be filed at the location of the immovable property.
In this case, the position of the appellate court appears to be correct, since the original application should have been assessed in accordance with the rule of exclusive jurisdiction established by Article 31 of the CPC, namely, the establishment of the fact of acceptance of an inheritance consisting of immovable property.
Regulatory Framework
The regulatory legal acts governing these legal relations and applicable to the adjudication of cases in the category under review include:
- the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
- the Chisinau Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 7 October 2002;
- the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 22 January 1993, and the Protocol thereto of 28 March 1997;
- the Civil Code of the Kazakh SSR (hereinafter – the Civil Code of the Kazakh SSR);
- the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan or the Civil Code (CC));
- the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the CPC);
- the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Marriage (Matrimony) and Family";
- the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Notaries";
- the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 5 of 29 June 1999 "On Certain Issues of the Application by Courts of Legislation on Inheritance" (hereinafter – the Normative Resolution);
- the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 13 of 28 June 2022 "On Judicial Practice in Cases Concerning the Establishment of Facts Having Legal Significance";
- the Rules for the Performance of Notarial Acts by Notaries, approved by Order No. 31 of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 31 January 2012.
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
