Summary of Lawsuits in 2009 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation

1. Lawsuit on the Refusal of the Statistics Department of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast
to Provide Environmental Information*.

The lawsuit was submitted on October 9, 2008, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast (SIEC EKO).

The lawsuit demands:
1. To recognize the lawsuit as substantiated.
2. To recognize as illegal the defendant’s categorization of the requested information as information with limited access.
3. To require the defendant to provide the requested information.
4. To recover the trial expenses from the defendant.

On November 27, 2008, the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast issued a decision on satisfaction of the complaint.
On December 11, the Statistics Department of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast submitted a complaint to the Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast Court’s Board on Civic Affairs.
On January 9, 2009, the Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast Court’s Board on Civil Affaires kept the decision taken by the SIEC EKO unchanged, and the complaint was not satisfied.
On March 9, the Statistics Department of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast filed a complaint for review.
On April 17, the Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast Court’s Board on Civil Affaires kept the decision taken by the SIEC EKO unchanged, and the complaint for review was not satisfied.

The decision came into force. On May 5, the Statistics Department of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast provided the information requested.

* * *

2. Lawsuit on the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan’s failure to act and on
acknowledging the Senior Sanitary Inspector’s statement regarding reduction
of the Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ) to be invalid.

The lawsuit in the interests of Berezovka village residents (Western Kazakhstan Oblast) was filed on June 19, 2008 to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (SIEC) of Astana city. The lawsuit was filed jointly with the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law and the Nationwide Public Organization “Shanyrak”.

The lawsuit demands:

1. The government’s failure to take measures in protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms, ensuring justice and safety for the residents of Berezovka village, who have had to live within the limits of Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ), shall be recognized as inaction.

2. The Government’s failure to control activity of the Ministries and other central and local executive authorities, in regards of implementation of legislation and international agreements, shall be recognized as inaction.

3. The Government’s failure to comply with its obligations by violating the provisions of the Aarhus Convention (Articles 3.2, 3.3, 3.9, 4 and 6) and the Law “On Environmental Assessment” of 1997 (Articles 13, 14, 15.1, 16 and 36) when taking decision about reduction of the SPZ, shall be recognized as inaction.

4. The Senior Sanitary Inspector’s statement #07-2 dated on January 16, 2004, to an Addendum to the Draft “The Sanitary Protection Zone of the Karachaganak Oil and Gas Condensate Field” dated on December 25, 2003, shall be recognized as invalid.

5. To require the Government to resolve the issue in accordance with the legislation, to relocate the residents of the Berezovka village to a safe and healthy location, and provide them with adequate housing taking into account their opinions.

6. To require the Government to resolve the question of compensation of material and moral damage caused to the residents of Berezovka village.

On December 11, 2008, the Astana City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs made a decision about satisfaction of the claimants’ demands and filed the lawsuit to the Almaty District Court of the city of Astana for further consideration.
On January 30, 2009, the judge of Almaty District of the city of Astana made a decision that the case was lacking of jurisdiction, by this violating the decision of the Astana City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs.
On March 12, the Astana City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs made a decision about filing the case to the SIEC of Astana.
On April 30, the SIEC acknowledged as invalid the decision of the Senior Sanitary Inspector dated on January 16, 2004, related to an Addendum to the Draft “The Sanitary Protection Zone of the Karachaganak Oil and Gas Condensate Field”.
Other lawsuit demands were left unsatisfied. The 5-km sanitary protection zone of the KPO was restored.
On June 10, the Astana City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs refused to satisfy the claimants and defenders’ appeal.
On July 31, a claim for review is filed to the Astana City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs.
On September 10, the Board held a preliminary hearings of the claim and refused to initiate a review procedure.
On October 1, a claim for review is filed to the Supreme Court.
On December 23, 2009, the Supreme Court considered the claim for review and satisfied all points. The case is sent for new consideration to the SIEC.

The case remains open.

* * *

3. Lawsuit on Banning All Types of Economic Activity in the Water Protection Strip of the Yesentai River (Almaty City),
and Cleaning the Land Plot from Construction Waste and Soil.

The lawsuit was submitted in the interests of the residents of the city of Almaty on October 28, 2008 in the Medeu District Court of Almaty City.

The lawsuit demands:

1. To oblige the private property owner to remove the construction waste and soil from the portion of the land plot located in the water conservation zone and water protection strip of the Yesentai River.

2. To prohibit the property owner of the land plot from undertaking construction or any other economic activity in the water protection strip.

On December 18, the Medeu District Court of Almaty City refused to satisfy the lawsuit demands.
On February 26, 2009, the Almaty City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs kept the decision made by the Medeu District Court unchanged and left the claimants’ appeal without satisfaction.
On June 3, a complaint for review is filed to the Almaty City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs.
On June 17, the Almaty City Court’s Board on Civil Affaires refused to satisfy the complaint for review.
On June 26, a complaint for review is submitted to the Supreme Court’s Court’s Board on Civic Affairs.
On June 23, the Board refused to satisfy the complaint for review.

* * *

4. Lawsuit to Recognize as Invalid the Conclusions of the State Environmental Assessment,
and to Suspend the Activities of “Tsentrbeton Ltd.”.

The lawsuit was submitted in the interests of the residents of Almaty city on October 31, 2008 in Court No.2 of the Bostandyksky District of Almaty City.

The lawsuit demands:

1. To recognize as invalid the conclusions of the state environmental assessment #03-08-543 (Februrary 27, 2007), conducted by the Almaty City Territorial Department of Environmental Protection (now the “Balkhash-Alakolsky Ecology Department of the Committee for Ecological Regulation and Control”).

2. To require the Akimat of the city of Almaty to suspend the economic activities of “Tsentrbeton Ltd.” until it is brought into full compliance with the requirements of the Republic of Kazakhstan’s Environmental Code.

On February 11, the court made a decision about recognition of the conclusions of the state environmental assessment to be invalid and about suspending the economic activities of the enterprise.
On April 3, the Almaty City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs satisfied the defenders; appeal and cancelled the decision of the Bosstandyk District Court #2.
On June 3, disagreed with the decision of the appeal board, the Ecological Society sent a complaint for review to the Almaty City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs.
On June 17, the Almaty City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs refused to satisfy the complaint for review filed by the Ecological Society.
On June 26, a complaint for review is submitted to the Supreme Court’s Board on Civic Affairs.
On September 10, the board held preliminary hearings of the complaint and made a decision about initiating a review procedure.
On September 16, the Supreme Court’s Board on Civic Affairs partially satisfied the complaint for review. The decisions of the Almaty City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs on the appeal and complaint for review of the Ecological Society were cancelled. .
The case is forwarded for a new consideration to the Bosstandyk Court #2.
On October 21, on-site court hearings took place at the “Tsentrbeton Ltd.” facilities and on the claimants’ plot of land attached to their house.
November 30, the court refused to satisfy the lawsuit demands.
December 9, an appeal is filed to the Almaty City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs.

The case remains open.

* * *

5. Lawsuit on recognizing as invalid the Government’s Decree and
“Rules of providing paid services by the governmental bodies in the area of forest industry and specially protected natural territories”.

The lawsuit is filed to the Supreme Court on June 26, 2009.

The lawsuit demands:

1. To recognize the Government’s Decree dated on April 27, 2009, under #586 “About approval of the “Rules of providing paid services by the governmental bodies in the area of forest industry and specially protected natural territories” to be invalid and totally contradicting to the requirements of the Articles 4 and 8 of the Aarhus Convention and Articles 13, 14, 47, and 57 of the Environmental Code.

2. To recognize the “Rules of providing paid services by the governmental bodies in the area of forest industry and specially protected natural territories” to be invalid and totally contradicting to the requirements of the Articles 4 and 8 of the Aarhus Convention and Articles 13, 14, 47, and 57 of the Environmental Code

On July 15, the court refused to satisfy the lawsuit demands.
On August 12, a petition concerning the illegitimacy of the Supreme Court’s decision on the case related to the Government’s Decree litigation is filed to the General Public Prosecutor’s Office.
On August 12, because of the judge’s violation of the national and international law during consideration of the lawsuit, the Ecological Society sent an appeal to the Head of the Supreme Court.
On September 4, a reply was received in which a suggestion to address to the Supreme Court’s Review Board on Civic Affairs was made.
On September 11, the General Public Prosecutor’s Office replied that no violation was found in the decision of the court.
On September 14, a complaint for review was filed to the Supreme Court’s Review Board on Civic Affairs.
On October 15, the court refused to satisfy the complaint for review.

* * *

6. Lawsuit about the Ministry of Public Health’s refusal to provide information.

The lawsuit in the interests of Berezovka village residents was filed to the Essil District Court #2 of Astana City on June 26, 2009.

The lawsuit demands:

1. To acknowledge the refusal of the Ministry of Public Health and Committee of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Control of the Ministry of Public Health to provide information, in particular, a report on “Evaluation of health conditions of the people living in the area of Karachaganak oil and gas condensate deposit”, to be inaction violating the rights and lawful interests of a juridical person.

2. To require the Ministry of Public Health to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with the information requested.

3. To exact the court legal costs from the Committee of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Control of the Ministry of Public Health.

On July 3, 2009, Essil District Court #2 of Astana city made a decision on lack of jurisdiction.
On August 13, the lawsuit is filed to the SIEC of Astana.
On October 27, the court hearings took place. The SIEC of Astana declined to satisfy the lawsuit demands. Even though the Ecological Society was provided with one of the versions of the report in an electronic form, this did not satisfy the claimants.
On Novermber 12, an appeal is submitted to the Astana City Court
On December 9, 2009, a petition of appeal was considered by the Astana City Court. The Court refused to satisfy the petition.
On January 6, 2010, a petition is sent to the Supreme Court.

The case remains open.

* * *

7. Lawsuit about the by public authorities’ provision of inadequate information about

situation in the water protection zone of Yesentai River (city of Almaty)

The lawsuit in protection of interests of Almaty city residents was filed on September 3, 2009, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (SIEC) of Almaty City.

The lawsuit demands:

1. To acknowledge that the information provided to the Ecological Society Green Salvation by the Almaty Department of mobilization, civil defense, emergency prevention and response, Almaty Department of Health, Department of natural resources and regulation of natural resources utilization, Medeuskiy Akimat, Almaty City Territorial Department of Environmental Protection, Balkhash-Alakolsky Ecology Department of the Committee for Ecological Regulation and Control, represented in a form of an act dated on May 28, 2007, to be inadequate.

2. To make a special legal counsel ruling to the president of the Republic of Kazakhstan, minister of health, and minister of emergency response on provision of inadequate environmental information by the governmental bodies within their jurisdiction which violates the code of honor of a governmental employee.

On September 16, 2009, the SIEC determined that the case needs to be returned due to contained mistakes.
On September 24, the lawsuit was re-filed to the SIEC of Almaty City.
On November 12, a special claim is submitted to the Almaty City Court.
On December 15, 2009, the case’s court jurisdiction was approved and the case was filed to the SIEC of Almaty.

The case remains open.

* * *

8. Lawsuit about cancellation of decisions, conclusions, and endorsements related to the project of construction of a module veterinary laboratory (city of Almaty).

The lawsuit in protection of the lawful interests of Almaty city residents was filed on October 16, 2009, to the Medeu District Court of Almaty City.

The lawsuit demands:

1. To cancel the permission of the Almaty Department of the State Architectural and Civil Engineering Control dated on August 14, 2009, under #224 allowing the construction works.

2. To cancel the permission given by the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources of the city of Almaty, under #03-20-586 dated on June15, 2009.

3. To cancel the work order signed by the Almaty Department of the State Architectural and Civil Engineering Control under #018 dated on June 25, 2009, for opening of a foundation pit and removal of the soil.

4. To cancel the endorsement signed by the Department of Committee of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Control of the city of Almaty #001 dated on 30.01.2008.

5. To cancel the endorsement of the Committee of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Control of the Ministry of Public Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan #07-12-1730 dated on December 19, 2007.

6. To cancel the conclusion of the State Environmental Assessment by the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources of the city of Almaty #04-08-280 dated on December 29, 2007, and the permission on emission into the environment dated on July 15, 2009, under #0000184, series А-07, as being illegitimate endorsements of the construction project of the module veterinary laboratory of the State Utility Enterprise “State Veterinary Laboratory” which lead to violation of the lawful interests of the district residents.

7. To acknowledge as illegitimate and invalid the project of construction of the module veterinary laboratory which realization lead to the violation of rights and lawful interests of the district residents.

8. To prohibit the placement, construction, and start-up works for the module veterinary laboratory performed with a violation of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

On October 20, 2009, the court is made decision to return the case materials.
On November 9, a special claim is submitted to the Almaty City Court.
On November 10, a letter sent to the President (Direct Line with the President). The President Administration forwarded the letter to the Pubic Prosecutor of Almaty City for checking the case.
On December 1, the appeal is considered and the case is directed to the District Court for the trial procedure.
On December 28, 2009, a preliminary case consideration took place in the Medeu District Court.

The case remains open.

* * *

9. Lawsuit about inaction of a governmental authority –
Committee of Court Administration under the Supreme Court.

The lawsuit was submitted in the interests of the residents of the city of Almaty on November 10, 2009, to the Essil District Court #2 of the city of Astana.

The lawsuit demands:

1. To recognize the failure of the Committee of Court Administration under the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan to comply with its obligations and provide a timely realization of executive documents by the Court Administrator of the city of Almaty on execution of SIEC’s decisions dated on September 10, 2007, and October 21, 2008, to be an illegal action (inaction). On September 10, 2007, the court made a decision about liquidation of the illegal dump near Chimbulak health resort.

2. To require the Committee of Court Administration under the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan to undertake legal measures to force the Court Administrator of the city of Almaty to start immediate implementation of the SIEC’s decisions indicated above.

On November 23, a special claim regarding the decision of a judge of the Essil District Court of the city of Astana was submitted to the Astana City Court.
On December 15, 2009, the Astana City Court determined the case’s court jurisdiction. The case was filed to the SIEC of Astana.

The case remains open.

——————————————————
Lawyer Svetlana Philippovna Katorcha defends the rights and legal interests of the Ecological Society Green Salvation in court.

* The rights and legal interests of the Ecological Society Green Salvation in court related to the Lawsuit on the Refusal of the Statistics Department of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast to Provide Environmental Information are defended by Shitov Alexander Anatolyevich.
Translated by Sofya Tairova.