Summary of Lawsuits in 2018 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation*

* Ecological Society Green Salvation (hereafter, GS)

SECTION No.1

No. 1

Case about recognizing the actions of the Forestry and Wildlife Committee, which provided untruthful environmental information, to be illegal (see Case No. 6, 2017).

Background. A cableway was built on the territory of the Ile-Alatau National Park behind the Talgar Pass. The GS believes that the requirements of the law «On Specially Protected Natural Territories» were grossly violated during its construction. The GS submitted inquiries to the Forestry and Wildlife Committee. A received response contained inaccurate information that this territory, allegedly, became a part of the national park after the forest management works of 2016. In the Republic of Kazakhstan, there was no normative legal act, which stated that boundaries of national parks are specified during forest management works.

Lawsuit in the interests of an undefined circle of persons and the state was filed to the SIEC of Astana on January 12, 2017.

The Forestry and Wildlife Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture was brought to trial as a defendant.

Violations:

provision of untruthful information is a violation of:

– Paragraph 2, Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

– Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

– Subparagraph 7, paragraph 1, Article 14 and paragraph 1, Article 163 of the Environmental Code;

– Paragraph 4, Article 6 of the Law «On Access to Information».

– Paragraph 18 of the regulatory decision of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 «On some issues of courts’ application of environmental laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil cases».

Demands:

  1. To recognize the act of providing of untruthful information by the Committee to be unlawful.
  2. To oblige the Committee to provide the requested information in the full extent, including all seven points specified in the GS’s request.
  3. To make a private determination with regard to the head of the Committee, in accordance with the Article 270 of the CPC.

On February 14, 2017, the SIEC of the city of Astana passed a ruling on termination of the proceedings on the GS’s lawsuit against the Forestry and Wildlife Committee.

Rejecting the GS in satisfying the lawsuit demands, the judge, firstly, in violation of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Article 225 of the CPC of the RK, went beyond the scope of the claim, concluding that the claimant had allegedly already appealed the documents specified in the statement. Secondly, he incorrectly applied the paragraph 1 of the Article 277 of the CPC of the RK and recognized that «the case is not subject to consideration in civil proceedings». Thus, the judge violated the norms of national legislation and the Aarhus Convention.

On February 27, a private complaint was filed with the Appellate Board of the Astana City Court against the determination of the SIEC.

On April 12, the Board abolished the determination of the SIEC and sent the case for a revision by a different panel of judges.

The Board acknowledged that «when terminating the proceedings on this case as not subject to consideration by way of civil proceedings, the court of first instance referred to the existence of an enforceable judicial act between the same parties and about the same subject … this conclusion of the court of first instance, in the opinion of the panel, is incorrect and inadequate to the case materials.

The grounds for this lawsuit are different than for the demands stated and reviewed in 2015. Therefore, there were no grounds for termination of the proceedings on this case.

In view of the discrepancy between the conclusions of the court, described in the determination, and the materials of the case and the improper application of the rules of procedural law, the appealed determination is subject to cancellation, and the case is sent for a revision by a different panel of judges of the same court».

On June 7, a judge of the SIEC of the city of Astana refused to satisfy the lawsuit.

Without any reference to laws, the judge writes in the decision that «in the course of forest management works, the boundaries of the national park were specified». In the Republic of Kazakhstan, there is no normative legal act, according to which boundaries of national parks are specified during forest management works. And inclusion of new territories in the boundaries of national parks is carried out only by the government.

The judge, factually, blamed the government to be incompetent, which allegedly arbitrarily, without careful preparation of the question of territory and borders, passed a resolution establishing the Ile-Alatau National Park.

The judge ignored the fact that the defendant did not submit cartographic material to the court, despite the petition of the GS.

On July 14, an appeal against the decision of the SIEC is submitted to the Appelate Board of the Court of the city of Astana.

On September 13, the Board refused to satisfy the complaint.

In violation of the paragraph 2, Article 224 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Board judges did not investigate the evidence referred to by GS. They repeated the arguments of the court of the first instance and the apparent disinformation provided by the defendants. The defendant did not provide any evidence supporting his position. In fact, the case was not considered.

The judges actually accused the government of being incompetent, who allegedly arbitrarily, without carefully studying the issue of territory and borders, passed a resolution establishing the Ile-Alatau National Park.

On December 5, a petition on revision of judicial acts that entered into force was submitted to the Supreme Court in cassation order.

On January 8, 2018, after a preliminary examination of the petition, a judge of the Supreme Court refused to transfer it to the Cassation Board of the Supreme Court. The judge repeated the arguments of the courts of the first and appellate instances. The justification for the refusal was the judicial acts, not the norms of the laws: «The courts identified that «in the course of the forest management works, the boundaries of the national park were specified». In the Republic of Kazakhstan there is no normative legal act, which states that boundaries of national parks are specified during forest management works.

The case is closed. Reliable information is not provided.

* * *

No. 2

Case about acknowledging actions of the state municipal enterprise «Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty» along with the protocols of public hearings, to be unlawful (see Case No.7, 2017).

Background. Serious violations took place during public hearings concerning environmental impact assessment of a manufacturing facility for outdoor advertising «I …» Individual Entrepreneur (hereafter, IE). Residents made a sound recording of the hearings and its decoding. The authorities stated that it was necessary to hold repeated hearings.

After a few years, during preparation of a material for the newspaper «Vecherny Almaty», activists found out that in addition to their recording there are two other official protocols of the public hearings. That is, firstly, after the fact, the public hearings were recognized as valid, which the residents were not informed about. And, secondly, two protocols were fabricated, differing in content.

The lawsuit in defense of the interests of local residents and an indefinite number of persons was filed to the Bostandyk District Court of Almaty on July 28, 2017.

Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization was brought to court as a defendant, «U…» IE—as a third person.

Legal violations:

violation of the rights of the public to participate in the decision-making process on matters relating to the environment:

– Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

– Subparagraph 4, paragraph 1, Article 13 of the Environmental Code.

Demands:

  1. To recognize the actions of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization to be illegal.
  2. To recognize two protocols of public hearings on the review of the project «Environmental Impact Assessment» for the production shop of «U …» IE to be illegal and to cancel them.

In August and September, the case was heard.

On September 19, the court denied satisfying the lawsuit demands.

  1. In violation of paragraph 2, Article 224 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the judge did not investigate the evidence referred to by GS. He ignored the fact that the two official protocols differ in content, and it is not clear which of them is authentic. The defendant was unable to provide the originals of these protocols to the court. In addition, the protocols do not correspond to the content of the sound recording made by the residents during the hearings. The court’s decision does not even mention presence of this recording in the case materials. The judge ignored the fact that the residents found out about existence of two different official protocols only after simultaneous inquiries to the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization and to the archive of the Bostandyk District Court of Almaty.
  2. The judge did not take into account the decision of the Bostandyk District Court of 2014, which states that public hearings were not held at all. The event referered to as public hearings by the defendant, was found illegal by the state authorities. Consequently, all the protocols of this event are illegal.
  3. In violation of the paragraph 1, Article 224 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the judge did not justify his decision, he did not refer to any laws or facts revealed during the court hearings. One of the main arguments on which the decision is based, makes one question the judge’s professional qualities. In his decision, the judge writes that the claimant, addressing «the court against the defendant in the interests of K …, could not have been unaware of the violation of rights by the defendant». However, the judge does not specify that in 2014, the subject of the lawsuit was completely different.

On October 20, an appeal against the decision of the Bostandyk District Court was submitted to the Civil Affaires Appeallate Board of the Almaty City Court.

On December 4, the Board refused to satisfy the appeal.

In violation of the paragraph 2, Article 224 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, judges did not investigate the evidence referred to by GS. They ignored the fact that the two official protocols differ in content, and it is unclear which of them is authentic. Judges did not require the defendant to provide the court with the originals of the two protocols. In addition, the judges did not take into account the fact that the protocols do not correspond to the content of the sound recording made by the residents at the public hearing. The decision of the Board does not even mention the presence of this record in the case materials. The judges ignored the fact that the residents found out about the existence of two different official protocols only after simultaneously addressing the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization and to the archives of the Bostandyk District Court of Almaty.

March 2018. A petition is being prepared to be submitted to the Supreme Court in a cassation order on reviewing judicial acts that have entered into force.

The case remains open.

* * *

No. 3

Case about acknowledging the actions of the state municipal enterprise «Department for control over utilization and protection of lands of the city of Almaty», which did not provide the requested environmental information, to be unlawful (see Case No.8, 2017).

Background. In the Butakovka Gorge on the territory of the Ile-Alatau National Park, there is an abandoned sports complex that collapsed in 2004. Ruins represent a danger to people, damage the ecological systems of the national park, and increase the threat of a fire.

The GS sent a request to the Department for control over utilization and protection of lands of the city of Almaty, in order to clarify measures taken to demolish the ruins and normalize the ecological situation in the gorge. The Department ignored the request.

The lawsuit in defense of interests of undefinite number of persons and the state was submitted to the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court (SIEC) of Almaty on October 5, 2017.

Department for control over utilization and protection of lands of the city of Almaty was brought to court as the defendant.

Legal violations:

Violation of the rights of the public to access environmental information, in particular the norms of:

– the paragraph 2, Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

– the Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

– the subparagraph 7, paragraph 1, Article 14 and paragraph 1, Article 163 of the Environmental Code;

– the paragraph 4, Article 6 of the Law «On Access to Information».

– Paragraph 18 of the regulatory decision of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 «On some issues of courts’ application of environmental laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil cases».

Demands:

  1. To acknowledge the failure to provide environmental information by the Department for control over utilization and protection of lands of the city of Almaty to be unlawful.
  2. To require the Department to provide the requested environmental information to the Ecological Society «Green Salvation».
  3. To make a private determination for the Head of the Department, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

On November 24, the court denied satisfying the lawsuit demands, referring to the fact that the defendant handed the reply to GS representative in the court. The defendant could not prove that GS received the reply by mail in a timely manner. However, the judge admitted that the reply does not correspond to «the subject of inquiry». That is in fact, a reply had not been received by GS. Probably, in order to somehow smooth out the apparent contradictions in the court’s decision, the judge made a private determination of the state municipal enterprise «Department for control over utilization and protection of lands of the city of Almaty». According to the determination, the Department must provide a full and reliable reply to GS within one month.

On December 22, an appeal against the decision of the SIEC of Almaty was submitted to the Appeallate Board of the Almaty City Court.

On January 31, 2018, the Appeallate Board issued a resolution about satisfaction of the demands of the GS.

The actions of the Department for control over utilization and protection of lands of the city of Almaty, which did not provide environmental information to the GS, were found to be illegal.

The court obliged the Department to provide the requested information.

On February 19, the SIEC of Almaty issued a writ of execution to enforce the court decision.

The case is closed. Executive procedure continues.

* * *

No. 4

Case about acknowledging of the unlawful actions of the republic state enterprise «Department of Public Health Protection of the city of Almaty», which did not provide the requested environmental information (see Case No.9, 2017).

Background. Because of the constant emissions of dry cement from the enterprise «U …» LLP, at the request of the local residents, Environmental Society «Green Salvation» appealed to the Department of Public Health of Almaty with a request to provide a sanitary and epidemiological report issued to «U …» LLP. The department denied providing the GS with the information explaining it as if the sanitary-epidemiological report is a trade secret. 

The lawsuit in defense of the interests of an undefinite number of persons and the state was filed to the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of Almaty on October 26, 2017.

The republic state enterprise «Department of Public Health Protection of the city of Almaty», was brought to court as a defendant.

Legal violations:

violation of the rights of the public to access environmental information, in particular the norms of:

– the paragraph 2, Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

– the Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

– the subparagraph 7, paragraph 1, Article 14 and paragraph 1, Article 163 of the Environmental Code;

– the paragraph 4. Article 6 of the Law «On Access to Information».

– Paragraph 18 of the regulatory decision of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 «On some issues of courts’ application of environmental laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil cases».

Demands:

  1. To acknowledge the failure to provide environmental information by the Department of Public Health Protection of the city of Almaty, to be an illegal action.
  2. To oblige the Department to provide GS with the requested environmental information in the form of a copy of the sanitary and epidemiological certificate issued by LLP «U …».
  3. To make a private determination for the Head of the Department, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

On November 1, the judge issued a determination about returning the lawsuit due to the unpaid state fee. He did not take into account the subparagraph 8-2) of the Article 541 of the Tax Code, according to which claimants are exempt from payment of the state fee when filing lawsuits in defense of rights, freedoms and lawful interests of individuals and legal entities, including those of an undetermined number of persons, on environmental protection and the use of natural resources, and the interests of the state. Neither did he recall the paragraph 15 of the normative Resolution No. 8 of the Supreme Court dated on November 25, 2016, «On Some Issues of Application of Environmental Legislation by the Courts», which states the same.

On November 9, a private complaint was submitted to the Appeallate Board of the Almaty City Court.

On December 6, the Board refused to satisfy the complaint. In violation of the paragraph 2, Article 224 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the judge, did not investigate the evidence referred to by GS. In the court’s ruling, the judge pointed out that by requesting specific environmental information in the interests of an indefinite number of persons, GS defends its own rights! He then repeated the arguments of the court of the first instance.

On December 28, after paying the state fee, the GS re-submitted the lawsuit to the SIEC of Almaty.

In January 2018, the case was opened.

On February 15, the judge denied the lawsuit demands.

Firstly, in violation of the paragraph 3, Article 2 of the Aarhus Convention and subparagraph 7, paragraph 1, Article 159 of the Environmental Code, the judge did not recognize the sanitary and epidemiological report to be environmental information.

Secondly, in violation of the Article 4, paragraph 4 of the Aarhus Convention, Article 163, paragraph 1 of the Environmental Code, Article 88, paragraph 1, subparagraph 8 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on People’s Health and the Healthcare System, Article 6, paragraph 4 of the Law «On Access to Information», the judge recognized the sanitary and epidemiological report to be a trade secret.

Thirdly, in violation of the article 2, paragraph 5 of the Aarhus Convention, the judge refused to recognize the GS to be the «public concerned» and did not recognize the organization’s right to receive environmental information.

Fourthly, in violation of article 9, paragraph 2 (a), of the Aarhus Convention, article 8, paragraph 2, of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and Article 14, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1-1) of the Environmental Code, the judge did not recognize the right of the GS to protect the rights, freedoms, and lawful interests of individuals and legal entities, including the interests of an undetermined number of persons.

The judge ignored all of the above provisions of the Aarhus Convention, that is, the ruling of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016, «On some issues of courts’ application of environmental laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil cases».

On March 14, the GS sent an appeal to the Appeallate Judicial Board for Civil Matters of the Almaty City Court.

The case remains open.

* * *

No. 5

Case about acknowledging actions of the state municipal enterprise «Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty» which did not provide the requested environmental information, to be unlawful (see Case No.10, 2017).

Background. In the summer of 2017, under the order of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management of Almaty, the reconstruction of the riverbed of the Kimasar River was started. Due to the absence of special signs indicating the border of the Ile-Alatau National Park on the ground, it is impossible to determine on whose territory the reconstruction (city or national park) was carried out. The GS believes that during the reconstruction, the requirements of the law «On Specially Protected Natural Territories» were violated. In this regard, the GS sent a letter to the Department. The Department provided incomplete information, in which there were no answers to the main questions posed by the GS.

Lawsuit in the interests of an undefinite number of persons and the state was filed to the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of Almaty on November 2, 2017.

The state municipal enterprise «Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty» was brought to court as a defendant.

Legal violations:

Violation of the rights of the public to access environmental information, in particular the norms of:

– the paaragraph 2, Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

– the Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

– the subparagraph 7, paragraph 1, Article 14 and paragraph 1, Article 163 of the Environmental Code;

– the paragraph 4, Article 6 of the Law «On Access to Information».

– Paragraph 18 of the regulatory decision of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 «On some issues of courts’ application of environmental laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil cases».

Demands:

  1. To acknowledge the failure to provide environmental information by the state municipal enterprise «Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty» to be an illegal action.
  2. To oblige the Department to provide GS with the requested environmental information regarding eligibility for reconstruction of Kimasar riverbed with copies of the following documents:

– reconstruction project;

– environmental impact assessment of the planned economic activity;

– minutes of public hearings on this project;

– conclusion of the state environmental assessment;

– forest pathological examination of vegetation and permission to cut down trees in the specified territory, including a plan for compensatory planting.

  1. To make a private determination for the Head of the Department, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan..

On December 20, the court ruled to satisfy the claimant’s demands.

The actions of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management of Almaty, which did not provide environmental information to the GS, were declared illegal.

The court ordered the Department to provide the requested information.

However, a private determination about the Head of the Department, was not issued.

On January 31, 2018, the Department filed an appeal against the decision of the SIEC of Almaty.

On March 28, the Appeallate Judicial Board of the Almaty City Court left the decision of the SIEC of December 20, 2017, without changes, and the complaint of the Department was dismissed.

The case remains open.

* * *

SECTION No.2

Implementation of court decisions

“Court decisions which came into legal force … are obligatory for all state authorities, organs of local self-administration, public associations, other juridical persons, officials, and citizens without any exceptions, and are subjected to a strict implementation over the whole territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, p.2, Article 21, Civil Procedural Code of the RK.

* * * 

No.1

A ruling of the Review Board of the Supreme Court on the lawsuit about inaction of the director of the Department of the Committee of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Control in the city of Almaty which expressed in a lack of control over marking of sanitary and protection zones with special signs on-site was adopted on November 27, 2013 (see the case No.9, 2012, and case No.4, 2013).

Background. In connection with the constant emissions of dry cement from the enterprise “U …” LLP, local residents with the assistance of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” applied to the court demanding to provide information about the sanitary protection zones of “U …” LLP and neighboring industrial enterprises, terrains, special signs indicating the boundaries of sanitary protection zones.

In 2013, the Supreme Court adopted a resolution obliging the Department of Public Health of Almaty (formerly the Department of Sanitary and Epidemiological Control in Almaty) to satisfy the claimants’ demands. Since 2014, local residents, with the assistance of the GS, are seeking to implement the Supreme Court decision. 

On October 3, 2014, because of a failure to implement the Decision of the Supervisory Board of the Supreme Court dated on November 27, 2013, which admitted the inaction of the director of the Department of sanitary and epidemiological control of the city of Almaty, the claimants filed a new lawsuit. They demanded to acknowledge the actions of the law enforcement officer of the Department of Judicial Acts Enforcement of the city of Almaty to be illegal.

On November 3, the case hearings are suspended, as the Department of Judicial Acts Enforcement of the city of Almaty admitted the violations, cancelled the disputed determination, and made a decision to resume the executory process.

On December 24, the executory process was resumed.

On February 25, 2015, Medeu District Court made a determination on restriction to travel to the Head of the Department of Consumer Rights Protection of the city of Almaty till the full completion of enforcement of the court decision.

June 8, a representative of the Department of Judicial Acts Enforcement of the city of Almaty together with representatives of the Consumer Rights Protection Department of the city of Almaty and Public Prosecutor’s Office, and local residents went to the site for a check-up of the court decision enforcement.

2016

  1. Claimants are calling for initiation of a criminal case against the former Head of the Consumer Rights Protection Department of the city of Almaty for the malicious failure to implement of the determination of the Supreme Court.
  2. Claimants are demanding the acting Head of the Consumer Rights Protection Department of the city of Almaty to implement the determination of the Supervisory Board of the Supreme Court dated on November 27, 2013, since the retirement of the previous head does not cease the court execution of the court determination. 

On August 3, the Supervisory Board of the Supreme Court made a determination on the claimants’ statement where it was indicated that control over marking the area of sanitary and protecting zones and providing the claimants with the documentation reflecting location of their houses and boundaries of the sanitary and protection zones is delegated to the head of the Consumer Rights Protection Department “as an authority – supervisor of a juridical person”.

On the basis of the Supreme Court’s determination dated on August 3, 2016, the decision of the bailiff of the Department of Justice of the city of Almaty dated on May 16, 2016, about termination of the enforcement proceedings was cancelled.

On December 27, 2016, a bailiff delivered the ruling about implementation of the determination of the Supreme Court to the Department representative and listed the Department in the General register of obligators on executory proceedings.

On February 24, 2017, the Consumer Rights Protection Department filed a petition to the Medeu District Court of Almaty to appeal against the actions of the bailiff of the municipal branch of the Justice Department of Almaty. The Consumer Rights Protection Department requested that the enforcement proceedings be terminated, allegedly due to fulfillment of all claims of the plaintiffs.

On April 4, the judge of the Medeu District Court of Almaty refused to satisfy the statement, pointing out that there are no grounds for terminating the enforcement proceedings.

On May 3, the Department lodged an appeal with the Civil Affairs Board of the Almaty City Court.

On July 11, because of dismissal of the bailiff K …, the enforcement proceedings were transferred to a new bailiff T …

On July 20, the Civil Affaires Appeallate Board of the Almaty City Court refused to satisfy the complaint of the Department of Consumer Rights Protection.

On August 25, the bailiff introduced a proposal to correct the debtor’s name, since the Department of Consumer Rights Protection of the city of Almaty was renamed to the Department of Public Health Protection of the city of Almaty. By a court decision of September 21, the debtor was renamed.

On September 25, the debtor was asked to enforce the judicial act.

On October 24, 2017, the Department submitted a private complaint with a request to revoke the determination of the Medeu District Court of Almaty dated on September 21, 2017 about changing the name of the debtor. The applicants of the enforcement proceeding filed a statement to the Almaty City Court about recognizing them as the third parties on the part of the defendant, who do not make independent claims.

By determination of the Almaty City Court, the applicants are recognized and brought to trial as a third party. This allowed them to give a full explanation on the case. The court was submitted with an objection to the private complaint of the Department and a petition to include written documents to the materials of the civil case as additional evidence that is essential to the proper resolution of the case.

On February 5, 2018, by a determination of the Appeallate Board of the Almaty City Court, the determination of the Medeu district court of Almaty was left unchanged, and the private complaint of the Department was dismissed.

In February, the Department submitted a petition to the Supreme Court with a request to review all judicial acts issued on this case.

By a resolution of the Supreme Court dated on March 12, the Department was denied in a review of the determination of the Medeu District Court of Almaty of September 21, 2017, and the determination of the Civil Affaires Appeallate Board of the Almaty City Court of February 5, 2018, in a cassation order.

In March, the Department again submitted a private complaint to the Medeu District Court of Almaty against the actions of the bailiff. In it, the Department refers to the arguments that have been repeatedly cited in the complaints previously filed with the courts of all instances.

On April 16, Medeu District Court of Almaty refused to meet the demands of the Department in full.

Not implemented.

* * *  

No. 2

Case about inaction of a state authority which lead to serious deterioration of environmental situation in the town of Besagash and violation of the citizens’ rights to favorable environment (See case No.6, 2016).

Background. An unauthorized dump site was formed on the territory of an abandoned boiler house in the village of Besagash, Almaty oblast. Despite several court decisions in favor of local residents, the ruins and dump site are not liquidated. Since 2016, local residents, with the assistance of the GS, are striving to implement the decisions of the courts. 

On July 13 and August 31, 2016, the GS filed letters to the judge of Talgar District Court of Almaty Oblast with a request to issue a writ to implement the requirements of the paragraph 1, Article 227 of the CPC of the RK , in order to oblige the state organ «to eliminate in full extent the occured violation and recover the violated rights, freedoms, and lawful interests of a citizen or juridical person».

On October 27, the GS sent a request about implemented measures on liquidation of unsanctioned dumpsite and destroyed building to the head of the akim’s (governor’s) office of Talgar District.

On November 10, the head of the akim’s office informed that the territory will be cleared of litter, the litter will be removed, and the new owner of the boiler-house is taking an obligation to demolish the building in spring 2017.

On May 11, 2017, a request was sent to the head of the Talgar District’s akim office, Almaty oblast, to inquire about measures taken to eliminate the dumpsite and demolish the destroyed boiler house.

On May 29, a response was received stating that the new owner of the site is committed to bringing it to order by the end of June.

On August 10, the head of the Akim’s Office of the Talgar district of Almaty oblast was repeatedly sent an inquiry about measures taken to clean up the dump and demolish the destroyed boiler house.

On August 21, a reply was received, it stated that the dump will be cleaned up by the owner in the near future.

Not implemented.

* * *

Rights and legal interests of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” are defended in court by lawyer Svetlana Philippovna Katorcha and an attorney of the Almaty City Board of Attorneys Omarbekova Alma Zhanatovna.

Translated by Sofya Tairova

* * *

Summary of Lawsuits in 2017 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2016 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2015 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2014 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2013 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2012 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2011 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2010 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2009 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2008 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2007 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation