The following persons shall not be removed from the housing waiting list for housing from the state housing stock: kandas, orphans and children left without parental care, single-parent families, mothers awarded the “Altyn Alqa”, “Kumis Alqa”, “Mother Heroine”, “Maternal Glory” Orders of I and II Degrees, and large families

This category of disputes is regulated by Chapter 10 of the Law on Housing Relations, in particular by Article 73 of the Law, according to which the following persons shall not be removed from the housing register: kandas who have acquired citizenship of the Republic of Kazakhstan under the procedure of resettlement to regions determined by the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan; orphans and children left without parental care; single-parent families; mothers of many children awarded the “Altyn Alqa” or “Kumis Alqa” pendants or who were previously awarded the title of “Mother Heroine”; as well as mothers awarded the “Maternal Glory” Orders of I and II Degrees; and large families who, in accordance with the procedure established by this Law, have been recognized as persons in need of housing and placed on the housing register, until they receive housing.

The fulfillment of obligations assumed by the state and the provision of social support in the form of housing may not be made conditional upon the exercise by a citizen of his or her right to choose a place of residence within the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

For reference: By a decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty dated 19 April 2022, the claim of T. against the State Communal Enterprise (GKP) was granted. The removal of T. from the housing register as a person in need of housing was declared unlawful. T. had been included in the housing waiting list and registered under the category of “orphans” as a one-person household. The GKP was ordered to fully remedy the violation within one month from the date on which the decision became legally effective and to notify the court accordingly (Case No. 7594-22-00-4/514).

It was established that by a decision of the akim dated 14 June 2013, R. was appointed as T.’s guardian.

By a decision of the Housing Commission under the Akimat of Almaty dated 10 September 2013, T. was placed on the register of persons in need of housing to be provided from the municipal housing stock under the category of “orphans.”

On 17 January 2022, T. received a letter from the defendant, No. I-6804 dated 28 December 2021, concerning her removal from the register of persons in need of housing.

On 25 January 2022, T. applied to the defendant, expressing her disagreement with the said decision. On 9 February 2022, the deputy head of the defendant issued a written refusal.

T. brought an action before the court, arguing that she had been registered under the category of “orphans” and recognized as a person in need of housing; however, the defendant’s employees, without explaining the applicable procedure to her, unlawfully removed her from the housing waiting list, thereby violating her rights.

In its response to the claim, the defendant requested that the claim be dismissed, arguing that, according to the results of an inventory, it had been established that since 8 September 2021 the claimant had been registered as residing in Usharal village, Alakol District, Almaty Region.

The court of first instance, in granting the claimant’s demands, proceeded from the fact that since the age of 14 she had been a child left without parental care, had been under the guardianship of R. since 14 June 2013, and had also been duly placed on the housing waiting list under the category of “orphans.” No ownership right to residential property had been registered in her name anywhere in the Republic of Kazakhstan, as confirmed by certificates obtained through the EGOV system.

Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (New York, 20 November 1989), ratified by Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 8 June 1994, States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, guardians, or other persons legally responsible for the child, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 20 of the Convention, a child who is temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or who, in his or her own best interests, cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.

In accordance with subparagraph 6) of paragraph 1 of Article 68 of the Law, socially vulnerable groups include orphans under the age of twenty-nine who lost their parents before reaching the age of majority.

Moreover, paragraph 1 of Article 73 of the Law provides that orphans and children left without parental care shall not be removed from the housing register.

Thus, in the court’s opinion, the relocation from Almaty to Almaty Region cannot constitute grounds for depriving the claimant of her right to the provision of housing as a person who had been left without parental care. By confirming that the claimant had an unrealized right to housing under the relevant category, the defendant nevertheless unjustifiably removed her from the housing waiting list.

Another example concerning the removal from the housing register of persons in need of housing from the state housing stock due to the grounds for providing housing having ceased to exist

For reference: By a decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty dated 12 October 2021, which was upheld by a ruling of the Administrative Chamber for Civil Cases of the Almaty City Court dated 28 February 2022, the claim of A. was granted. The actions of the State Communal Enterprise (GKP) in refusing to register A. as a person in need of housing from the municipal housing stock of Almaty under the category of “Large Families” were declared unlawful. The GKP was ordered to remedy the violation of the rights and legitimate interests of A.E. within 15 days from the date on which the court decision became legally effective (Case No. 7594-21-00-4/631).

It was established that A. had been residing in Almaty since 1986 and had permanent registration there. She was in a registered marriage and had four minor children. Since 1 June 2020, her family had been granted the status of a “large family.”

Due to the absence of her own housing, the claimant applied to the defendant to be registered as a person in need of housing from the municipal housing stock of Almaty under the category of “Large Families.”

However, the defendant refused to register her, arguing that in 2019 the claimant had been registered in Almaty Region, which allegedly indicated that she had resided in Almaty for less than three years.

In response to the claimant’s request for clarification of the reasons for the refusal, a reply was issued referring to an interruption in her permanent registration of residence in Almaty. Paragraph 1 of Article 67 of the Law on Housing Relations was cited as the legal basis.

Articles 67, 69 and 72 of the Law provide that housing from the municipal housing stock is provided for use by citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan in need of housing who permanently reside in the relevant locality.

In granting the claim, the court stated that, prior to applying to the defendant, the claimant had lived permanently in Almaty since birth and for more than thirty years, was a mother of many children, and did not own residential property. These circumstances demonstrated that she fell within the category of citizens eligible to be registered as persons in need of housing to be provided from the municipal housing stock.

The defendant’s arguments concerning an interruption in the claimant’s period of permanent residence in Almaty were found by the court to be unfounded. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Civil Code, a citizen’s place of residence is the locality where the citizen permanently or predominantly resides. The legislation on housing relations refers only to the requirement that the applicant permanently reside in the relevant locality for at least three years.

Thus, the court reliably established the fact that the claimant had permanently resided in Almaty for at least three years, which unequivocally entitled her to be registered as a person in need of housing from the municipal housing stock of Almaty under the category of “Large Families,” as provided for by Article 73 of the Law.

Examples from the Practice of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court in Claims against Local Executive Bodies

1) In the claim filed by B. challenging the order of the Department dated 24 November 2020 insofar as it concerned her removal from the waiting list of persons in need of housing, the court, having assessed the defendant’s arguments, stated that the failure to submit a separately executed application for a change of category (in this case, from “oralman” to “persons with disabilities”) could not constitute grounds for depriving the claimant of her right to receive housing and removing her from the waiting list of persons in need of housing (Case No. 6001-21-00-6ап/82).

2) In the claim filed by A. challenging the Department’s refusal dated 2 September 2021 to place her on the waiting list under the category of “employees of budgetary organizations,” the court, on 7 June 2022, drew the defendant’s attention to the following circumstances (Case No. 6001-22-00-6ап/92).

Subparagraph 1) of paragraph 14 of the Regulation on the State Institution “Department of Housing and Housing Inspection of Astana” provides for the powers of the Department, including the right to request from citizens applying for housing from the state housing stock the documents required under the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as to verify the authenticity of the submitted documents; and to request from state bodies, other organizations and enterprises, regardless of their form of ownership, and individuals the information necessary to perform the tasks assigned to the Department.

Thus, under the Regulation, when exercising these powers, the Department, in verifying the fact of residence in cities of republican significance and the capital for at least three years, has the opportunity to verify extracts from employment record books and pension account statements submitted by applicants and, where necessary, request the data required for clarification from state bodies and organizations regardless of their form of ownership, as well as obtain such data from the relevant state information systems through the “electronic government” gateway.

Furthermore, pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Civil Code, a person’s place of residence is the locality where the person permanently or predominantly resides. It follows from this provision that actual residence, rather than registration, is the fundamental fact in determining a person’s place of residence.

3) In the claim filed by L. challenging the Department’s refusal dated 28 June 2021 to place her on the housing register under the category of “large families,” the judicial panel, leaving the judicial acts previously rendered in force, noted that since the legislation contains no clear definition of the concept of “housing suitable for habitation,” the courts had correctly applied the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 75 of the Law on Housing Relations, according to which the standard for the usable floor area of a dwelling must be at least 15 square meters and no more than 18 square meters of usable floor area per person (Case No. 6001-22-00-6ап/10).

In this case, the defendant, referring to subparagraph 6) of paragraph 8 of the Rules for Registration of Citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan in Need of Housing from the State Housing Stock or Housing Rented by a Local Executive Body in the Private Housing Stock, approved by Resolution No. 856 of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 26 June 2012, substantiated its arguments by stating that the claimant had not submitted a sanitary and epidemiological conclusion.

Rejecting these arguments as unfounded, the judicial panel noted that the claimant had submitted an application to be registered as a person in need of housing under the category of “large family” due to the absence of housing owned by her, rather than due to the existing housing failing to comply with sanitary and epidemiological requirements. Therefore, the provision of the Rules concerning the submission of a sanitary and epidemiological inspection report was not applicable to the legal relationship between the parties.

Another example

By a decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court dated 19 July 2023, the claim filed by S. against the akim and the state institution seeking to compel a change of category on the waiting list for housing from the state housing stock was granted (Case No. 3594-23-00-4/644).

The defendants were ordered to change S.’s category on the waiting list of persons in need of housing from the state housing stock from “single-parent families” to the category of “orphans and children left without parental care under the age of twenty-nine who lost their parents before reaching the age of majority,” effective from the date of her registration, 8 July 2014, within one month from the date on which this court decision became legally effective.

For reference: In granting the claimant’s demands, the court proceeded from the requirements of Articles 67, 68, 69, 71 and 74 of the Law on Housing Relations (in the version in force at the time the claimant was registered as a person in need of housing), stating that it had been reliably established that, at the time she was registered as a person in need of housing from the state housing stock, S.V. was a graduate of an orphanage and, therefore, should have been placed on the waiting list under the category of “orphans.”

Furthermore, pursuant to Resolution No. 1882 of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 22 December 2000, “On Employment and Provision of Housing to Graduates of Educational Organizations from among Orphans and Children Left without Parental Care” (which was in force at the time the claimant graduated from the orphanage), akims of the regions and the cities of Astana and Almaty were required to take measures to employ and provide housing to graduates of educational organizations from among orphans and children left without parental care.

However, the local executive body failed to take such measures, which, in turn, demonstrated its failure to comply with the requirements of the above-mentioned Government Resolution with respect to registering the claimant as a person in need of housing under the appropriate category, resulting in a violation of her rights and legitimate interests.

The court established that the administration of the orphanage, acting as the claimant’s guardian, had failed to take timely measures to register S. as a person in need of housing to be provided from the municipal housing stock, had failed to submit the relevant documents to the akimat for registration, while the akimat had failed to supervise the activities of the state bodies accountable to it and had failed to register her, thereby violating her rights and legitimate interests.

As a result of the inaction of the administration of the state institution, which consisted in failing to submit to the local executive body the relevant documents in S.’s name confirming her need for housing from the state housing stock or housing rented by a local executive body in the private housing stock under the category of “orphans,” the claimant was deprived of her right to be placed on the waiting list for housing from the state housing stock under the category of “orphans.” This demonstrated a complete lack of proper interaction between the structural divisions of state bodies, as well as their complete inaction.

At the same time, the court found no fault on the part of S. in her failure to be registered and included in the waiting list for housing under the category of “orphans,” since the orphanage, despite its duties as her guardian, had failed to place her on the waiting list for housing from the state housing stock in a timely manner and had not submitted an application in this regard.

Initially, in 2014, S.V. herself applied to the akimat concerning her registration as a person in need of housing.

Pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Rules for Registration of Citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan in Need of Housing from the State Housing Stock or Housing Rented by a Local Executive Body in the Private Housing Stock, approved by Resolution No. 856 of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 26 June 2012, which were in force at the time the claimant submitted her application, and paragraph 5 of Article 71 of the Law, local executive bodies are required to conduct an inventory of the waiting lists of citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan registered as persons in need of housing from the municipal housing stock.

In the case of claimant S., the housing commission of the local executive body, having considered her application dated 8 July 2014 for the provision of housing, failed to establish which category of socially vulnerable groups the applicant belonged to and failed to resolve the issue of registering her as a person in need of housing from the state housing stock under the category of “orphans.” This, in turn, demonstrated non-compliance with the requirements of Resolution No. 1882 of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 22 December 2000.

The Administrative Chamber of the regional court agreed with these conclusions and upheld the decision of the court of first instance without amendment.

The judicial acts were not appealed in cassation proceedings.

After the court decision became legally effective, it was enforced by changing S.’s category on the waiting list of persons in need of housing from the state housing stock from “single-parent families” to the category of “orphans and children left without parental care under the age of twenty-nine who lost their parents before reaching the age of majority,” effective from the date of her registration, 8 July 2014.

Pursuant to Article 14 of the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, an administrative body or official is prohibited from refusing to exercise, restricting or terminating the right of a participant in an administrative procedure, or imposing an obligation on such participant for the purpose of complying with requirements not established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

For reference: By a decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court dated 13 October 2022, upheld by the appellate court’s ruling dated 31 January 2023, the claim filed by K. against the Department seeking to compel the Department to place her on the waiting list of persons in need of housing from the municipal housing stock was granted.

Since 15 May 2009, the claimant had been on the waiting list of persons in need of housing from the municipal housing stock under the category of “employees of budgetary organizations.” According to her disability certificate, the claimant had been assigned a Group I disability.

On 19 July 2022, the claimant applied to the Department requesting that she be registered under the category of “persons with disabilities.”

On 5 August 2022, the Department provided a response refusing to register the claimant on the waiting list of persons in need of housing from the date on which her disability had been established, and informed her that, if she applied, she would be registered at the end of the waiting list, that is, from the date of her application.

K. filed a claim with the court, arguing that she had been on the housing waiting list for more than 12 years, from 2009 to 2022, as an employee of a budgetary organization, and that in 2018 she had been assigned a Group I disability. The claimant considered the defendant’s refusal, according to which she would be transferred from the waiting list for budgetary employees and placed on the waiting list under the disability category from the date of her application, to be unlawful.

In granting the claim, the court held that the defendant had unlawfully refused to register the claimant on the waiting list of persons in need of housing from the date on which her disability had been established.

The claimant’s written application and submission of a certificate confirming her Group I disability constituted an additional ground for the Department to register her for housing from the state housing stock.

Pursuant to Article 69 of the Law, citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan who do not have housing from the municipal housing stock in permanent use in the relevant locality shall be recognized as persons in need of housing from the state housing stock if, at the time of registration and at the time housing is provided from the municipal housing stock or the housing stock of a state enterprise, they do not own housing anywhere in the Republic of Kazakhstan; if, at the time of registration and at the time housing is provided from the housing stock of a state institution, they do not own housing in the relevant locality; and if they do not have rental housing provided without the right of purchase.

Pursuant to Article 68 of the Law, persons with Group I and Group II disabilities belong to socially vulnerable groups of the population.

Thus, the court established that A.K. was a person entitled to receive housing from the state housing stock and belonged to a socially vulnerable group entitled to receive housing from the state housing stock. In the present case, there were no grounds, as provided for by Article 73 of the Law, for removing the claimant from the register of persons in need of housing from the state housing stock or housing rented by a local executive body in the private housing stock.

By a ruling of the Cassation Judicial Panel dated 26 October 2023, the judicial acts of the local courts were upheld (Case No. 6001-23-00-6ап/642).

Conciliation Procedures

The Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (APPC) provides for the possibility of conducting conciliation procedures in disputes arising from public-law relations. At the same time, reconciliation of the parties is permitted where the defendant has administrative discretion. This provision of the legislation is justified by the fact that violations of the rights of a citizen or legal entity may be remedied by the state body or official itself annulling the contested act or terminating the relevant action.

On the basis of mutual concessions, the parties may fully or partially terminate an administrative case by concluding a settlement agreement, a mediation agreement, or an agreement on settlement of the dispute through a participatory procedure at any stage of the administrative proceedings before the court retires to deliberate and render its decision.

The court’s adoption of measures aimed at reconciling the parties and assisting them in resolving the dispute at all stages of the proceedings follows from the objectives of administrative proceedings. While maintaining a neutral position with regard to the parties’ claims, the court explains to the parties their right to use conciliation procedures and the legal consequences of concluding such agreements.

At the same time, the application within administrative proceedings of the principles of the APPC (the active role of the court, fairness and proportionality), measures of procedural coercion (monetary penalty), and conciliation procedures has significantly improved the quality of adjudication of cases in the category under review.

Thus, implementation of the principle of the active role of the court contributes to the resolution of the dispute by the court or to the withdrawal of the claim as a result of an amicable settlement of the dispute or an explanation of the prospects of the case. For example, the defendant may itself annul the contested act or take actions as a result of which the dispute ceases to exist.

Jurisdiction

When considering disputes arising from housing-related legal relations, compliance with the rules of jurisdiction, the filing of claims by persons having the right to assert a claim, and the proper determination of the subject matter of the claim are of particular importance for the resolution of disputes.

Jurisdiction is determined in accordance with Articles 102, 103 and 106 of the APPC. At the request of the claimant, cases falling within the jurisdiction of specialized district and equivalent administrative courts may be considered by the court at the claimant’s place of residence, except for cases falling within the jurisdiction of specialized district and equivalent administrative courts located within cities of republican significance and the capital, as well as regional centers.

Pursuant to Article 103 of the APPC, military courts hear administrative cases concerning claims filed by military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan, other troops and military formations, as well as citizens undergoing military training, where the defendants are military administration bodies or military units, except for cases falling within the jurisdiction of other specialized courts.

If a military court has not been established within the territory of the relevant administrative-territorial unit, administrative cases falling within its jurisdiction shall be heard by specialized district and equivalent administrative courts in accordance with the procedure established by this Code.

The analysis showed that, in general, the claims submitted to the courts were accepted in compliance with the rules of jurisdiction and did not cause any particular difficulties for the courts.

At the same time, where a military court exists in the relevant region, questions arise concerning the proper determination of jurisdiction over claims concerning the appointment of EHV.

Thus, TJV is granted to active-duty military personnel, and disputes concerning such payments fall within the jurisdiction of military courts. EHV, however, is granted upon the dismissal of a military serviceman, and due to the loss of the relevant status by one of the parties to the dispute, special jurisdiction no longer applies.

Based on the above judicial practice, it should be noted that the proper determination of jurisdiction is important by virtue of the constitutional provision, and compliance with jurisdictional rules in administrative cases must be ensured in accordance with Articles 102 and 103 of the APPC.

Procedure for Proceedings in a Case

Pursuant to Articles 146 and 148 of the APPC, an administrative case shall be considered and resolved within a reasonable period, but not more than three months from the date of filing the claim.

Judicial proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of the CPC, except for the specific features established by Article 147 of the APPC. With the consent of the parties, the court may consider an administrative case in written proceedings within a reasonable period, but not exceeding three months from the date of filing the claim.

After registration of the claim, at the stages of the preliminary hearing and judicial proceedings, the court, within the framework of its active role, shall facilitate the formation of the correct legal position by the claimants.

In general, the courts of the Republic considered the majority of cases in this category in compliance with the above requirements.

Persons Participating in the Case

Pursuant to Article 26 of the APPC, the participants in an administrative process are the claimant, defendant, interested person, and prosecutor.

At the same time, in housing disputes, pursuant to Article 31 of the APPC, the prosecutor, as a rule, does not participate.

The persons participating in the case are determined by the claimant when filing the claim with the court. Persons entitled to bring a claim before the court are specified in Articles 67–68 of the Law.

At the preliminary hearing, the court determines the persons whose rights, freedoms or legitimate interests may be affected by an administrative act or administrative action (inaction), who are subsequently involved in the case as interested persons in accordance with Article [number not specified in the source].

The analysis showed that, in claims filed by military personnel and employees of law enforcement and special state bodies concerning TЖВ and ЕЖВ payments, the defendants are the relevant territorial administrative bodies under which housing commissions have been established and which adopted the relevant decisions (military units, institutions of the Committee of the Penal Enforcement System, police departments, line departments, security services, etc.). Where necessary, a higher state body (Committee, Ministry) is involved as an interested person.

In claims filed by citizens against local executive bodies, the akim of the administrative-territorial unit and/or the Department of Housing and Communal Services or the Department of Housing Relations is involved as the defendant.

Pursuant to subparagraph 12) of paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Local State Administration and Self-Government in the Republic of Kazakhstan,” the akimat of a district (a city of regional significance), in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, organizes the construction of housing from the municipal housing stock and its distribution.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 77 of the Law, housing from the municipal housing stock or housing rented by a local executive body from the private housing stock shall be provided by decision of the local executive body at the applicant’s place of residence on the basis of a decision of the housing commission.

Housing commissions of local executive bodies operating on a permanent basis are established under the local executive bodies. The authorized body is the local executive body providing the housing.

In each particular case, it is necessary to correctly determine the defendants based on the subject matter and grounds of the claimant’s requirements, the defendant’s objections, the laws applicable to the case, and the legal status and powers of the authorized bodies.

Where a claim is filed against an improper defendant, pursuant to Articles 16 and 116 of the APPC, in order to prevent delays in consideration of the dispute, the court should explain to the claimant the procedure for replacing the improper defendant with the proper defendant in accordance with Article 29 of the APPC.

Based on the practice of the local courts, there is no need to involve members of housing commissions as defendants.

A decision granting the claim is enforced by the administrative body, akim or Department of Housing and Communal Services. There are no difficulties or problematic issues concerning the enforcement of court decisions that have entered into legal force.

Evidence and Proof

Although, pursuant to Article 129 of the APPC, in claims challenging administrative acts, the burden of proof lies with the administrative body, the body/housing commission has access only to the data contained in information-exchange systems between state bodies. As a rule, when making decisions, local executive bodies do not request additional documents from persons on the housing waiting list.

At the same time, the nature of proof in housing disputes requires the submission of evidence, information about which is protected by law or which, by its nature, can only be provided by the claimant (mortgage agreements, bank certificates, certificates from the place of employment or study, service records), or which is personal in nature (information on family composition).

Thus, as evidence:

a) in claims challenging decisions of housing commissions of local executive bodies on exclusion from the housing waiting list, claimants may submit documents confirming their classification within the relevant category of persons on the waiting list (service records from human resources departments, certificates from the place of employment of civil servants, disability certificates, birth certificates for all children, divorce certificates, certificates of registered property rights in respect of all family members, etc.);

as evidence of residence (non-departure), claimants may submit certificates from their place of study or employment, witness statements, and reports (character references) from district police inspectors.

Time Limits for Filing a Claim (Practice on Restoration of Time Limits)

The time limits for filing a claim are provided for by Chapter 20 of the APPC and, in particular, are regulated by Article 136 of the APPC.

As a general rule, a time limit for filing a claim missed for a valid reason may be restored by the court in accordance with the rules of the CPC. The reasons for missing the time limit for filing a claim with the court and their significance for the proper resolution of the administrative case shall be determined by the court at the preliminary hearing.

Missing 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, constitute grounds for returning the claim.

At the same time, it should be taken into account that, pursuant to Part 5 of Article 136 of the APPC, a person who did not participate in the administrative procedure, whose rights, freedoms and legitimate interests are affected by an administrative act, has the right to file a claim with the court within one month from the date on which the person learned or could have learned about the adoption of the administrative act, but no later than one year from the date of its adoption.

Application of Procedural Coercive Measures

Where a violation of procedural legislation is established during consideration of a case, procedural coercive measures shall be applied in accordance with Chapter 18 of the APPC.

Pursuant to Article 127 of the APPC, the court may impose a monetary penalty on a person who abuses procedural rights or fails to perform procedural duties, including in cases of submitting evidence or complying with court instructions after the deadline established by the court without valid reasons, if this resulted in delaying the consideration of the administrative case, in the amount of ten monthly calculation indices for each 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, failure to notify the court in a timely manner, failure to submit a response in a timely manner, disobedience to the orders of the presiding judge during 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 may 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 the 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 this category of disputes, monetary penalties are most frequently imposed on defendants for the following reasons:

• failure to submit a response in a timely manner;
• failure to provide the materials of the administrative case in a timely manner or 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

NPR SC – Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

IS – Information System

Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court – Judicial Chamber for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Administrative Chamber or Chamber – Judicial Chamber for Administrative Cases

SIAС – Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court

MIA – Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan

MoD – Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Kazakhstan

NSC – National Security Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan

GP – General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Department of Emergency Situations – Department of Emergency Situations

SSB – Special State Bodies

Police Department – Police Department

ТЖВ – current housing payments

ЕЖВ – lump-sum housing payments

GHS – state housing stock

LЕB – local executive bodies

The principal regulatory legal acts governing housing disputes are:

· Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

· APPC;

· CC;

· CPC;

· Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Housing Relations” (hereinafter – the Law on Housing Relations);

· Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On State Property” (hereinafter – the Law on State Property);

· Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Military Service and Status of Military Personnel” (hereinafter – the Law on Military Service);

· Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Law Enforcement Service” (hereinafter – the Law on Law Enforcement Bodies);

· Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Legal Acts” (hereinafter – the Law on Legal Acts);

· Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Judicial Practice in the Application of Legislation on Privatization by Citizens of Residential Premises from the State Housing Stock” dated 18 July 1997 No. 9;

as well as subordinate regulatory legal acts:

· Rules for provision of service housing to military personnel, calculation of the amount, assignment, recalculation, payment, termination, suspension and resumption of housing payments, approved by Resolution No. 49 of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12 February 2018 (hereinafter – Rules No. 49);

· Rules for payment of monetary compensation, approved by Resolution No. 50 of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12 February 2018 (hereinafter – Rules No. 50);

· Rules for provision of service housing to employees of internal affairs bodies, calculation of the amount, assignment, recalculation, payment, termination, suspension and resumption of housing payments, as well as categories of positions of employees of internal affairs bodies entitled to receive housing payments, approved by Resolution No. 524 of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 5 August 2021 (hereinafter – Rules No. 524);

· Rules for privatization of housing from the state housing stock, approved by Resolution No. 673 of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 2 July 2013 (hereinafter – Rules No. 673);

· Rules for provision of the state service “Registration and placement on the waiting list, as well as adoption by local executive bodies of a decision on provision of housing to citizens in need of housing from the state housing stock or housing rented by a local executive body from the private housing stock,” approved by Order No. 441 of the Acting Minister of Industry and Infrastructure Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 13 August 2021;

· Rules for transfer of state property assigned to state legal entities from one type of state ownership to another, approved by Order No. 85 of the Minister of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 26 May 2023;

· Rules for registration of citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan in need of housing from the state housing stock or housing rented by a local executive body from the private housing stock, approved by Order No. 168 of the Minister of Industry and Construction of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 27 December 2023.

If an international treaty ratified by the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes rules other than those provided for by the Law on Housing Relations, the rules of the international treaty shall apply.

Pursuant to Articles 10 and 12 of the Law on Legal Acts, codes have greater legal force than laws; where there are contradictions between provisions of regulatory legal acts of different levels, the provisions of the act having a higher legal force shall apply.

As a general rule established by Article 4 of the CC and Article 43 of the Law on Legal Acts, regulatory legal acts shall apply to relations arising after such acts enter into force.

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