* 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 Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court (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 Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (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 …» SP. 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…» SP — 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 …» SP 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. 

On April 18, 2018, a petition was sent to the Supreme Court through a cassation procedure for reviewing judicial acts that entered into legal force.

On June 4, a judge of the Supreme Court, having previously considered the petition, refused to submit it to the cassation instance of the Supreme Court. In violation of the paragraph 2 of Article 224 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the judge did not examine the evidence relied on by the GS. He ignored the fact that the two official protocols differ from each other in content and it is unclear which one is the original. The judge did not require the defendant to submit the originals of the two protocols to the court. In addition, the judge did not take into account the fact that the protocols do not correspond to the content of the sound recording, which was made by residents at the public hearing. In fact, the decision of the judge is based on inaccurate information.

When considering this civil case, courts of all instances, including the Supreme Court, did not apply the norms of the Aarhus Convention, which take precedence over the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Paragraph 18 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 «On certain matters of application of environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil cases by courts» was not taken into account. It states that when considering environmental disputes, Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention should be applied.

The case is closed. Violations are not eliminated.

* * *

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.

In March, the Department sent a petition to the Supreme Court through a cassation procedure about revision of judicial acts, which entered into legal force.

On May 28, after reviewing the petition, a judge of the Supreme Court refused to submit it to the cassation instance of the Supreme Court. The decision states: «The appellate court made a correct conclusion that the reply provided by the Department at the request of the Ecological Society cannot be acknowledged as compliant with the requirements of the legislation, that the answer of July 14, 2017 No. 02.1-04 / ЗТ-К-136 does not contain complete and reliable information on the requested issue, and also is not relevant to the subject of the request».

The case is closed. Executive procedure continues. (See the Section No. 2. Implementation of court decisions, case No. 3).

* * *

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.

On May 23, the board fully satisfied the complaint of the GS. The judges acknowledged that:

— the requested information (sanitary-epidemiological conclusion) is environmental information;

— it is not a commercial secret.

The board decided: «The case decision of the specialized inter-district economic court of Almaty of February 15, 2018, is to be changed. The court decision in the part of refusal to satisfy the statement on acknowledging of the action of the Department of Public Health of the City of Almaty as illegal to be cancelled. A new decision to satisfy the complaint is to be made in this part.»

To recognize as illegal the actions of the Department of not providing of environmental information in the form of a copy of the sanitary-epidemiological conclusion.

To oblige the Department to eliminate the violations of the rights and interests of the public association.

On June 12, the SIEC of Almaty issued a writ of execution to enforce the court decision.

The case is closed. Executive procedures continue. (See the Section No. 2. Implementation of court decisions, case No. 4).

* * *

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.

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 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.

On April 16, the SIEC of Almaty issued a writ of execution to enforce the court decision.

The case is closed. Executive procedures continue. (See the Section No. 2. Implementation of court decisions, case No. 5).

* * *

No. 6

Case about acknowledging of unreliable information provision by the MSE «Department for control over use and protection of lands of the city of Almaty» to be an illegal action, and about obliging it to provide complete and reliable environmental information.

Background.

On May 21, 2018, a citizen K… and other residents of Velikolukskaya street of Turksib district of the city of Almaty, addressed the head of the Municipal State Enterprise (MSE) «Department of land relations of the city of Almaty» with a statement. It was forwarded for consideration on the merits to the MSE «Department for control over use and protection of lands of the city of Almaty» (hereinafter — Department).

On July 4, citizen K… received a response from the Department, which states that the land plot at the requested address belongs to citizen Y… with a designated purpose — non-residential premises — and is located in a commercial zone.

In accordance with the official response of the MSE «Department of Architecture and Urban Planning of the City of Almaty», with an attached diagram and a reference to the decision of the Maslikhat of Almaty, the indicated land plot is located in a residential zone.

Due to the contradictions in the responses of the state authorities, a lawsuit was filed to the court.

The lawsuit in the interests of citizen K… was submitted to the Almaly District Court No.2 of the city of Almaty on September 14, 2018.

MSE «Department for control over use and protection of lands of the city of Almaty» is brought to the court as a defendant.

Legal violations:

Violated the right of the citizen K… on access to environmental information, in particular, the following norms:

— 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, paragraphs 1, Article 13 and paragraphs 1, Article 163 of the Environmental Code;

— paragraph 4, Article 6 and Article 18 of the Law «On Access to Information»;

— paragraph 18 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 «On some questions of application by courts of environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil matters».

Demands:

1. To acknowledge the provision of misleading information by the Department to the Ecological Society to be an illegal action.
2. To oblige the Department to provide the Ecological Society «Green Salvation» with the requested environmental information.
3. To issue a private court ruling in relation to the head of the Department, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code.

On October 2, review process of the case began.

On November 2, the court rejected the application. The judge allowed an arbitrary interpretation of the concepts of the law «On architectural, urban planning, and construction activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan» and ignored the decision of the XXVI session of Maslikhat of Almaty dated on November 20, 2006, No. 284, namely: «Plan for implementation of urban planning regulations for development of functional areas of the city of Almaty».

For example, the court decision states that the master plan of the city development, that establishes zoning, planning structure, and functional organization of the territory, is only a plan, an intention! And that there is no evidence in the case file that «at the present time, these urban planning regulations have been implemented or their implementation has begun on the territory of Turksib district…»

The judge simply dropped the question of zoning.

On December 7, the ES filed an appeal to the Appeals Board of the Almaty City Court.

* * *

No. 7

Case about acknowledging the inaction of the MSE «Department for control over use and protection of lands of the city of Almaty» to be illegal and obliging it to fully eliminate the allowed violations 

Background.

After studying the situation on-site and the letter provided by the Department dated on October 12, 2018, the Ecological Society came to the conclusion that the Department is not fulfilling its direct responsibilities in controling protection and use of the lands. The ruins located on an abandoned site within the Ile-Alatau National Park pose a serious threat to lives of the park visitors. The deteriorated building is turning into a dumpsite for construction waste, which is being spread by wind and washed out by water. This damages ecosystems of the park and its tourist attractiveness.

The lawsuit in the interests of undefined number of individuals and the state was filed to the SIEC of the city of Almaty on November 28, 2018.

The «Department for control over use and protection of lands of the city of Almaty» is brought to court as a defendant.

Violations:

According to the Article 148 of the Land Code and the requirements of the paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Provision on the MSE «Department for control over use and protection of lands of the city of Almaty», the Department has the right to:

— submit materials on violations of land legislation to the relevant authorities to resolve the issue of bringing those responsible to justice;

— make decisions on administrative penalty for violation of land legislation;

— prepare and bring claims to the court on issues of compensation for damage as a result of violation of land laws, of expropriation of land plots that are not used for their intended purpose or used in violation of the law;

— give binding instructions on land protection and elimination of violations of land legislation to landowners and land users.

In the case mentioned above, the Department took no action.

Demands:

1. To recognize as illegal the inaction of the «Department for control over use and protection of lands of the city of Almaty».
2. To oblige the Department to eliminate the violations in full.
3. To issue a private court ruling in relation to the head of the Department, in accordance with the Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code.

On December 26, consideration of the case began.

* * *

No. 8

Case about acknowledging the act of providing of untruthful information by the MSE «Department of tourism and external relations of the city of Almaty» to be an illegal action and obliging it to provide accurate environmental information. 

Background.

According to the opinion of the Department, stated in its reply of November 26, 2018 to the request of the Ecological Society «Green Salvation», «… the term «zero» construction option was put into use and appeared due to appeals and speeches of representatives of the GS.

This is not true, that is, it is false information. According to the paragraph 2, sub-paragraph 5 of the Instructions for Conducting of Environmental Impact Assessment of June 28, 2007, environmental impact assessment is carried out on the basis of the following principles:

«1) obligation – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is obligatory for any types of economic or other activity which can have a direct or indirect impact on the environment and public health.

… 3) alternativeness – the impact assessment is based on mandatory consideration of alternative design solutions, including the design solutions option, including the option of rejecting the planned activity («zero» option).»

The term «zero» option of construction was introduced and emerged due to the current norm of the aforementioned Instruction approved by an order of the Minister of Environmental Protection, and not due to appeals and speeches of representatives of the GS.

We consider the action of the Department which provided the false information to be an illegal action violating the rights of the Ecological Society provided for by the subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Environmental Code, namely: the right «to receive timely, complete and reliable information from state bodies and organizations.»

The lawsuit in the interests of the Ecological Society and an indefined number of individuals was filed on December 10, 2018 to the SIEC.

MSE «Department of tourism and external relations of the city of Almaty» is brought to court as a defendant.

Legal violations:

The right of the public to access environmental information has been violated, in particular, the norms:

— 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;

— sub-paragraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 13, sub-paragraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 14, and paragraph 1 of Article 163 of the Environmental Code;

— paragraph 4 of Article 6, Article 18 of the Law «On Access to Information»;

— paragraph 18 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 «On some questions of application by courts of environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil matters».

Demands:

1. To recognize the provision of false information by the Department of tourism and external relations of the city of Almaty as an illegal act.
2. To oblige the Department to provide the Ecological Society with reliable environmental information.
3. To issue a private court ruling in relation to the head of the Department, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code.

On January 4, 2019, consideration of the case began.

The representative of the Department did not provide a response to the lawsuit, which is a violation of Article 166 of the Civil Procedural Code.

* * * * * *

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 on February 17, 2017. 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.

In May, the claimants appealed to the Almaty Prosecutor’s Office with a request to check why the judicial act was not being executed. The Deputy Prosecutor of Almaty informed them that on April 25, 2018, the enforcement proceedings were discontinued due to their full implementation. However, the bailiff did not inform the claimants about this. They appealed to the bailiff with a request to provide a copy of the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings of April 25, 2018.

On May 15, the bailiff handed them a copy of the above mentioned ruling. The claimants appealed to the Medeu District Court of Almaty, demanding to recognize the ruling as illegal and cancel it.

On June 18, the Medeu District Court of Almaty, having considered the complaint, issued a ruling on termination of the proceedings, referring to the fact that this complaint is not a subject for civil proceedings.

The claimants filed a private complaint against the court ruling in accordance with Article 429 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the Appeals Board of the Almaty City Court. When issuing the litigated ruling, the court violated the requirements of the existing laws, in particular, paragraph 1 of Article 8, paragraph 1 of Article 250 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Articles 3, 10, 16, 50, and 127 of the Law «On Enforcement Proceedings and the status of bailiffs».

On August 2, the Appeals Board of the Almaty City Court cancelled the ruling of the Medeu District Court of Almaty on termination of the enforcement proceedings of the case and sent it for a new review to the Medeu District Court of Almaty from the stage of acceptance of the complaint.

On September 18, the Medeu District Court of the city of Almaty declared illegal the action of the bailiff of the Department of Justice on enforcement of non-proprietary requirements when issuing the ruling of April 25, 2018 on termination of the enforcement proceedings.

The court ordered the bailiff to eliminate in full the violations of the rights of claimants and take measures aimed at fulfilling the requirements of the executive document.

In November, the Department of Public Health of the city of Almaty filed a request to the Medeu District Court for renewal of the missed deadline for filing an appeal against the decision of the Medeu District Court of Almaty of September 18, 2018.

On December 11, the court refused to satisfy the Department’s request for renewal of the missed deadline for filing an appeal.

The case is closed. Executive proceeding continues.

* * *  

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. The executive proceeding is terminated.

* * *

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 Section 1, case No. 3)

State bailiff of the Division for execution of non-property related requirements of the Department of Justice of Almaty has repeatedly handed the notice of voluntary execution of the court decision to the head of the Department for control over utilization and protection of lands of the city of Almaty. The Department for control over utilization and protection of lands of the city of Almaty requested the GS to clarify the list of requested documents. The GS sent the list to the defendant. However, up until July 10, the information was not provided.

On July 12, the bailiff handed the defendant another notice. It defined the deadline for voluntary execution of the decision — until July 20, 2018.

If the court decision is not executed, the defendant will be brought to administrative responsibility. They will be charged a penalty for each day of non-execution of the decision. This was officially communicated to the defendant by the bailiff.

On August 20, a letter about bringing the debtor to administrative responsibility due to the malicious non-fulfillment of the court decision and the deliberate misleading of the bailiff was sent to the bailiff.

On August 21, the ES received a reply from the Department of Justice of Almaty, which stated that «on the basis of your petition regarding the Department for control over utilization and protection of lands of the city of Almaty, a request was sent for immediate execution of the requirements of the judicial act until September 5, 2018, with an attached petition where your reasons and what kind of environmental information the debtor must provide are stated.»

On October 12, the Department provided the bailiff with the same answer which was previously acknowledged by the court to be false.

The inaction of the Department was appealed by the GS to the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of Almaty, in accordance with Article 292 of the CPC.

The case is closed. The requested information was not received. Executive proceedings were discontinued due to filing of a new lawsuit to the court.

* * *

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 Section 1, case No. 4).

State bailiff of the Division for execution of non-property related requirements of the Department of Justice of Almaty handed the notice of voluntary execution of the court decision to the head of the Department of Public Health Protection of the city of Almaty. However, until July 10, the information was not provided.

On July 10, the bailiff received a letter from the Department stating that the Department considers the judicial act issued in favor of the GS to be illegal and indicates that it did not violate the rights of the GS. Instead of executing the court decision, the Department is engaging in bureaucracy, giving an assessment to judicial acts.

On July 13, the bailiff handed the defendant another notice. It defines the deadline for voluntary execution of the decision — until July 20, 2018.

In case of non-execution of the court decision, the defendant will be brought to administrative responsibility. They will be charged a penalty for each day of non-execution of the decision. This was officially communicated to the defendant by the bailiff.

On August 22, a letter about bringing the debtor to administrative responsibility due to the malicious non-fulfillment of the court decision and the deliberate misleading of the bailiff was sent to the bailiff..

On October 16, a letter about bringing the debtor to administrative responsibility due to the malicious non-fulfillment of the court decision was sent again to the bailiff.

On October 24, in accordance with Article 235 of the CPC, a statement was submitted to the Almaty City Court to correct misprints allowed in the ruling of the judicial board.

On November 21, the Appellate Board of the Almaty City Court considered the above-mentioned statement of the GS. During the court session, a representative of the Department provided the GS with a copy of the sanitary-epidemiological conclusion on the project «Maximum Permissible Emissions», and not on the project to establish a sanitary protection zone.

On November 30, the GS sent a request to the Department asking for a copy of the sanitary-epidemiological conclusion on the project to establish a sanitary protection zone.

On December 14, 2018, the Department provided a copy of the sanitary-epidemiological conclusion on the project to establish a sanitary protection zone.

The case is closed. All requested information was received.

* * *

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 Section 1, case No. 5).

On April 16, 2018, the SIEC of Almaty issued a writ of execution to enforce the court decision.

State bailiff of the Division for execution of non-property related requirements of the Department of Justice of Almaty initiated enforcement proceedings and handed the notice of voluntary execution of the court decision to the head of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty.

On 6 June, the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty provided a part of the documentation requested by the GS, which was insufficient to make a decision.

On June 21, due to the fact the provided information was incomplete; the GS sent a letter to the bailiff asking to assure the full implementation of the court decision.

On July 12, the bailiff handed the defendant another notice. It defines the deadline for voluntary execution of the decision — until July 18, 2018.

In case of non-execution of the court decision, the defendant will be brought to administrative responsibility. They will be charged a penalty for each day of non-execution of the decision. This was officially communicated to the defendant by the bailiff.

On August 7, a letter was sent to the bailiff due to the fact that the Department did not provide all the documentation requested by the GS.

On September 18, a letter about termination of the enforcement proceedings due to provision of all requested information by the defendant was sent to the bailiff.

The case is closed. All requested information is received.

* * *

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

---

Subscribe to our updates

* Ecological Society Green Salvation (hereafter, GS)

SECTION No.1

* * *

No. 1
Case about inaction of a state authority in controlling of legislation observance in the area of preservation and utilization of sites of historical and cultural heritage, in particularly, in regards of Talgar site of ancient settlement (see the case No.011, 2015, case No.4, 2016).

The lawsuit in defence of interests of the state and undefined number of people is filed to the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court (SIEC) of the city of Astana on September 18, 2015.
The Ministry of Culture and Sports of the Republic of Kazakhstan is brought to trial as a defendant.

Legal violations:
in accordance to the Provisions about the Ministry of Culture and Sports of the Republic of Kazakhstan approved by the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated on September 23, 2014, the Ministry is obligated to control legislation observance in the area of preservation and utilization of sites of historical and cultural heritage, which in the given case is not executed by the Ministry.

Demands:

1. To oblige the Ministry of Culture and Sports to take immediate measures as by law enacted for preservation of the site of historical and cultural heritage—Talgar site of ancient settlement.
2. To oblige the Ministry to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with documents requested earlier, in particular, a base architectural plan and a layout map of the area with indication of a preservation zone of the site of historical and cultural heritage.

On November 28, 2016, a statement about reviewing of the court decision under new circumstances was submitted to the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court (SIEC) of the city of Astana.
On December 28, the SIEC of the city of Astana informed the GS that the case was under a review by the General Prosecutor’s office. After it is returned, the GS will be notified if the case is accepted for a proceeding.
On February 13, 2017, the SIEC of the city of Astana refused to satisfy the requirements of the GS, not recognizing the facts presented in the statement as the newly discovered circumstances.
On March 3, a private complaint was filed with the Appellate Board of the Court of Astana against the determination of the SIEC.
On April 12, the Board refused to satisfy the demands of the GS, not recognizing the facts presented in the statement as the newly discovered circumstances.
Due to incompliance of the Civil Procedural Code’s provision (hereinafter—CPC) with the requirements of the Constitution and other laws of the country regarding the priority of international agreements before national legislation, the GS decided to terminate the case.

The case is closed. The violations are not eliminated.

* * *

No. 2
Case about inaction of a public administration organ (Akimat of the city of Almaty) which lead to violation of the law «About specially protected natural territories»  (See the case No.8, 2016).

The lawsuit is filed by the GS on May 31, 2016, to the SIEC of Almaty City Court in defence of the state and undefined number of residents of the city of Almaty.
Akimat of the city of Almaty is brought to trial as a defender.

Violations:
1) Inaction of the Akimat of the city of Almaty in setting up a conservation zone of a specially protected natural territory of the country-wide level—Ile-Alaatau National Park, and limitation of activity which has a negative impact on the condition of the ecological systems of the park within the conservation zone, and determining a procedure for its protection and utilization.

Demands:

1. Acknowledge the failure of the Akimat of the city of Almaty to meet their responsibilities in setting up a conservation zone of a specially protected natural territory of the country-wide level —Ile-Alatau National Park, to be illegal inaction.
2. In order to ensure integrity and protection from unfavourable external impacts on the territory of Ile-Alatau National Park, oblige the Akimat of the city of Almaty to implement immediately the requirement of the law «About specially protected natural territories» on establishing the conservation zone.

On November 2, 2016, the Appellate Board of Almaty City Court denied satisfying the appeal.
The judges explained the denial as if the claimant missed the term of the limitation of actions. But they did not make a judgement over the actions of the judge who, in violation of the law, did not accept the lawsuit of the GS, therefore, creating an obstacle to access justice, in violation of the paragraph 8, Article 3 of the Aarhus Convention. No judgement was made over the actions of a judge who accepted the lawsuit into a proceeding, prepared the lawsuit for hearings, conducted several court hearings, after which discovered that the term of the limitation of actions had passed.
On February 15, 2017, a petition about revision of judicial acts that entered into legal force was submitted to the Supreme Court in a cassation order.
On March 6, after a preliminary examination of the petition, the Supreme Court’s judge refused to forward it for further examination by the cassation instance of the Supreme Court.
The judge repeated the arguments of the court of the first instance, explaining the denial by arguing that the claimant had missed the term of the limitation of actions. He did not assess the actions of a judge who, contrary to the law, did not accept the statement of the GS, thus creating an obstacle to access to justice in violation of the Article 3, paragraph 8 of the Aarhus Convention.

The case is closed. Violations are not eliminated.

* * *

No. 3
Case about acknowledging actions of an official who provided false information about authority of the Akimat to be unlawful (See the case No. 9, 2016).

Lawsuit in the interests of the state and undefined number of people was filed by the GS on June 27, 2016 to the SIEC of the city of Almaty.
Deputy head of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty was brought to trial as a defender.

Legal violations:
1) Action of the deputy head of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty which was expressed in providing of false and incomplete information about authority of the Akimat in establishing a conservation zone of a specially protected natural territory of Ile-Alatau SNNP.

Demands:

1. To acknowledge the provision of the false and incomplete information about establishing a conservation zone of a specially protected natural territory of Ile-Alatau SNNP by the deputy head of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty to be an unlawful action.
2. To oblige the deputy head to provide copies of documents which prove establishment of the conservation zone in Ile-Alatau SNNP (if such documents exist).

On December 9, 2016, a petition about revision of judicial acts that entered into legal force was filed to the Supreme Court in a cassation order.
On January 16, 2017, after a preliminary examination of the petition, the Supreme Court’s judge refused to forward it for further examination by the cassation instance of the Supreme Court.
The judge did not get acquainted with the case materials. He rewrote the decision of the court of the first instance and repeated all of its violations.
Firstly, the GS did not ask for clarification of the «order of establishing of the protection zone»! On March 28, 2016, the GS addressed the Akim of Almaty with a request to immediately take a decision on establishing a protection zone of a specially protected natural territory. Thus, the judge went beyond the limits of the claim, violating the requirements of the paragraph 2, Article 225 of the CPC.
Secondly, the judge ignored the fact that, after receiving the inaccurate and incomplete information, the GS addressed the authorized body—the Forestry and Wildlife Committee. The Committee clearly pointed to the article of the law, which obliges the akimat to establish a protection zone. After receiving the letter from the Committee, it became obvious that the Akimat of Almaty city deliberately kept silent about its authorities, which it could not be unaware of.
Thirdly, the judge partially and incorrectly examined the issue of providing false information, but did not examine the issue of providing incomplete information, which is also a violation of the rights of the GS and an undefined number of persons. Thus, the judge violated the norms of national legislation and the Aarhus Convention.

The case is closed. Violations are not eliminated. Reliable information is not provided.

* * *

No. 4
Case about acknowledging actions of the CSE «Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty» which provided false information, to be unlawful (See the case No. 10, 2016).

Lawsuit in defence of the interests of undefined number of residents of the city of Almaty is filed by the GS on July 25, 2016 to the SIEC of the city of Almaty.
The Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty was brought to trial as a defender.

Legal violations:
1) Action of the deputy head of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty which was expressed in providing the GS with false information about legal succession by «U…» LLC.

Demands:

1. To acknowledge the information provided by the defender—CSE «Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty»—to be false, and therefore, unlawful.
2. To oblige the defender—CSE «Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty»—to provide full and reliable information regarding the status of the «U…» LLC.

On December 12, 2016, after a preliminary review of the petition, a judge of the Supreme Court made a determination to forward it for a revision to the Cassation Board of the Supreme Court, which would take place on January 25, 2017.
On January 25, 2017, the Civil Affairs Judicial Board of the Supreme Court satisfied the petition of the GS. The determination of the SIEC of the city of Almaty dated on July 28, 2016, and the determination of the Appellate Board of the Almaty City Court of August 24, 2016, were abolished. The materials of the statement of claim are forwarded to the court of first instance for a review from the stage of accepting the statement of claim.
On April 14, the statement of the GS was reviewed by the judge of the SIEC of Almaty. He refused to satisfy the claim demands.
In the decision, the judge ignored the instruction of the Civil Affairs Board of the Supreme Court on mandatory application of the norms of the Aarhus Convention and the regulatory decision of the Supreme Court dated on November 25, 2016, No. 8 «On certain issues of application by courts of the environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil cases» when reviewing this case.
The judge did not limit himself to mere ignoring of these documents. He explained to the judges of the Supreme Court their «misses»: «The plaintiff’s reference that the Statement of the Supreme Court dated on December 12, 2016, established the fact of falsity is unfounded, since this Statement is made on the basis of the preliminary examination of the petition and is not final. Thus, in the Statement of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated on January 25, 2017, on the abolition of the determination and sending this claim for a revision, there are no conclusions about the falsity of the information».
The judge obviously did not understand that it was the conclusion about the falsity of the information that became the basis for revising determination of the SIEC of the city of Almaty dated on July 28, 2016 and the determination of the Appellate Board.
In addition, the judge went beyond the scope of the lawsuit demands, and did not review the case on the merits.
On May 11, a private complaint was filed with the Appellate Board of the Almaty City Court on the decision of the SIEC.
On June 6, the revision did not take place due to the fact that one of the judges of the Appellate Board had already participated in the examination of the case.
On July 19, the hearing did not take place due to the fact that the defendant’s representative had no power of attorney to participate in the process.
On August 2, 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, judges of the Appellate Board did not investigate the evidence referred to by GS. They repeated the arguments of the court of the first instance. Judges went beyond the scope of the claims, and did not consider the case on the merits.
Judges ignored the decision of the Supreme Court Civil Affairs Judicial Board of January 25, 2017, which refers to a mandatory application of the norms of the Aarhus Convention when considering this case, and the normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016, No. 8 “On certain issues of the Republic Kazakhstan’s environmental legislation application in civil matters by the courts”.
The judges ignored the decision of the Supreme Court of December 12, 2016, which acknowledged the fact of providing GS with unreliable information. Judges did not take into account the fact that the conclusion about unreliability of the information was the basis for a revision of the first instance court decision and the Appellate Board’s determination.
On September 28, a petition was submitted to the Supreme Court in cassation on revision of judicial acts that entered into force.
On October 23, after having examined the petition, the Supreme Court judge refused to pass it to the Cassation Board of the Supreme Court. 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. He repeated the arguments of the court of the first instance and the appellate instance.
On December 26, a letter was sent to the Chairman of the Supreme Court asking him to explain how to evaluate the actions of judges of all instances who examined this civil case on the merits in accordance with the appeal and cassation procedure (January 25, 2017), for lawfulness and validity.

The case remains open.

* * *

No. 5
Case about acknowledging actions of the Department of Consumers Rights Protection of the city of Almaty which did not provide requested information to be unlawful (See the case No. 11, 2016).

Lawsuit in the interests of undefined number of resident of the city of Almaty was filed by the GS to the SIEC of the city of Almaty on September 20, 2016.
The Department of Consumers Rights Protection of the city of Almaty is brought to trial as a defendant.

Legal violations:
1) The Department denied providing information of unlimited access, having illegally qualified it as information with limited access and illegally classifying it as a trade secret.

Demands:

1. To acknowledge the failure to provide information by the Department of Consumers Rights Protection of the city of Almaty, to be an illegal action;
2. To oblige the Department to provide the GS with the requested information in a way of a sanitary and epidemiological conclusion issued to «U…» LLC;
3. To issue a private determination in relation to the head of the Department, according to the Article 70 of the CPC of the RK.

On December 9, 2016, an appeal is filed to the Appellate Board of the Almaty City Court.
On February 1, 2017, the Appellate Board refused to satisfy the complaint. The Board repeated the arguments of the SIEC of Almaty that the GS is an improper plaintiff, because it addressed the defendant not directly, but through a lawyer.
On April 28, the GS submitted a petition to the Supreme Court to review the judicial acts in cassation, namely, the decision of the SIEC of Almaty dated on November 11, 2016, and the decision of the Appellate Board on Civil Affairs of the Almaty City Court dated on February 1, 2017. The basis for review is violation of the rules of the substantive and procedural law (Article 435 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).
On May 29, the Supreme Court judge, after having examined the petition, decided to refuse forwarding it to the Cassation Board of the Supreme Court. The judge did not review the case on the merits. He repeated the arguments of the judge of the SIEC of Almaty and the Appellate Board of the Almaty City Court that the GS is allegedly an inadequate plaintiff because it addressed the defendant not directly, but through a lawyer.

The case is closed. Information is not provided.

* * * 

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

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».

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 Appellate 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.

The case remains open.

* * * 

No. 7
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.
The lawsuit in defence 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…» Individual Entrepreneur (hereafter, 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 referred 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 Appellate 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.

The case remains open.

* * * 

No. 8
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.

The lawsuit in defence of interests of indefinite 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».

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

The case remains open.

* * *
No. 9
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.

The lawsuit in defence of the interests of an indefinite 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».

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 Limited Liability Partnership «U …» (hereafter, LLP).
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 defence 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 Appellate 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, GS submitted the second lawsuit to the SIEC of Almaty.

The case remains open.

* * *
No. 10
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.

Lawsuit in the interests of an indefinite 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 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».

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.
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 December 20, the court ruled to satisfy the claimant’s demands. However, a private determination about the Head of the Department, was not issued.

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).

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 enforcement proceedings.
On December 24, the enforcement proceedings were 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 enforcement 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 fulfilment 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 Affairs Appellate 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.
Currently, the materials of the civil case contested by the Department are being processed in the Civil Affairs Board of the Almaty City Court.

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).

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 occurred 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

* Ecological Society Green Salvation (hereafter, GS)

SECTION No.1

* * *

No. 1
Case about acknowledging the Environmental Impact Assessment for the project of “Construction of a road to the mountain ski resort “Kokzhailau” to be illegal in the part of preservation of threatened plants listed in the Red Book and about cancellation of the project (see the case No.007, 2015).

The lawsuit in the interests of the state and undefined number of Almaty residents was filed on April 17, 2015, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (SIEC) of the city of Almaty.

Being a requester of the project, the Department of auto roads of the city of Almaty is brought to trial as a defendant.

Legal violations:
Requirements of the Law “About specially protected natural territories” about protection of rare and threatened species of plants (p.1 32-1, p.5 of the Article 32-1 and p.4 of the Article 78) are violated

Demands:
1. To acknowledge the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project “Construction of a road to the mountain ski resort “Kokzhailau” to be illegal in the part of preservation of threatened plants listed in the Red Book and to cancel the project.

On November 24, a complaint is submitted to the Cassation Board of the Almaty City Court.

On December 15, the Cassation Board of the Almaty City Court began reviewing the complaint, but did not finish it. The review was first postponed to December 22, and then to December 29.

On December 29, the Cassation Board satisfied the complaint and made a statement about sending the case to the SIEC of Almaty and accepting it from the stage of the case admission.

The court hearings were scheduled for February 1, 2016. Due to the fact, that the case was assigned to a judge who violated the material and procedural law in two lawsuits filed by the GS, which were cancelled by the Almaty City Court, the organization submitted a request about recusation of the judge.

On February 2, the court denied the request about recusation by incorrectly interpreting the arguments. But the judge submitted a statement about self-recusation which was satisfied by the court. The case was assigned to a different judge.

From February 18 to March 9, several court hearings took place.

On March 11, the court denied satisfying the lawsuit demands. The judge allowed violation of the material and procedural laws.

Presented to the court documents proving the arguments of the ES about banning the removal and sanitary cutting of plants listed in the Red Book of Kazakhstan, were not studied by the court and were not given a proper evaluation.

The court did not take into consideration the norms of the Convention on Biological Diversity which have a priority over the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan and are applied directly, according to the Constitution, CPC of the RK, and the Environmental Code. In the court decision, it wasn’t even mentioned that, according to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Republic of Kazakhstan had adopted the international obligations in preservation of biological diversity, including protection of the plants listed in the Red Book.

The court making its decision based on the conclusion of the state assessment of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the project of “Construction of a road to the mountain ski resort “Kokzhailau”, grossly violated the requirements of the Article 15, Part 2, of the CPC of the RK, which states: “Court, staying objective and impartial, executes leadership of the process, creates necessary conditions for realization of the procedural rights on the full and objective study of a case circumstances by the parties.”

On April 7, a complaint is filed to the Civil Affaires Appeal Board of the Almaty City Court.

On June 29, the Board denied satisfying the claim.

1. In violation of the article 72 of the Civil Procedural Code (CPC) of the RK, the judges did not study the proves brought up by the GS. They referred to a decision dated on November 6, 2015, made by the court which allegedly had reviewed a similar case filed by the GS earlier. By that, the judges adopted a ruling which contradicted the Almaty City Court Cassation Board’s ruling dated on December 29, 2015, in which it was stated that EIA «can be a subject of a review in civil order» and can be disputed in a court.

2. The judges referring to the earlier reviewed case, indicated that allegedly during the environmdental assessment of the EIA materials, completeness of the EIA documentation and its conformance with the requirements of the instruction on conducting EIA were checked. Thus, the judges, once again, violated the requirements of the Article 72 of the CPC of the RK and paragraph 2, article 224 of the CPC of the RK.

3. After having admitted that the legislation of the RK does not allow «cutting» plants listed in the Red Book, in contradiction to their own statements, the judges indicated that developers of the EIA «came up with measures to reduce and prevent impact of the environments»! In other words, the judges admitted that, in spite of the requirements of the law, cutting plants listed in the Red Book is permissible.

4. The judges ignored the fact that, according to the law, not only the plants listed in the Red Book must be protected, but also the territory where they grow.

A petition about revision of the judicial acts adopted within this case was filed in a cassation order to the Supreme Court.

On November 14, after a preliminary review of the petition, the Supreme Court judge denied to pass it for a review by the Supreme Court Cassation Board.

The judge did not consider the arguments referred to by the ES in the petition. He did not go beyond reiterating the content of the decision of the court of the primary jurisdiction and the statement of the Appeal Board. In the conclusion, he indicated: «The petition arguments were subjected to a study by local courts and were given a proper legal evaluation. In these circumstances, there is no basis for a revision of the petition.»

The case is closed. Law violations are not eliminated.

* * *
No.2
Case about untruthful environmental information provided by the Committee of Forestry and Fauna about construction on the territory of a national park (see the case No.008, 2015).

The Lawsuit in the interests of the state and undefined number of people is filed on May 21, 2015, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of the city of Astana. The Committee of Forestry and Fauna of the Ministry of Agriculture is brought to trial as a defendant.

Legal violation:
A right of a public association to receive “timely, full, and truthful environmental information from state authorities and organizations” was violated (Environmental Code, Article 14, p.1, sub-p.7; Law “About specially protected natural territories”, Article 13, p.1, sub-p.5).

Demands:
1. To acknowledge the information provided by the defendant to be untruthful, therefore, illegal.

2. To oblige the defendant to provide the requested environmental information in full, including every point indicated in the request.

On September 16, the Appeal Board of the court denied satisfying the appeal. In violation of the Article 355 of the Civil Procedural Code of the RK, the Board did not study thoroughly the factual circumstance of the case and did not take into consideration the additional proves presented by the claimants, which are significant for solving this case correctly.

On March 14, 2016, a petition is filed to the Supreme Court in the order of cassation about revision of court cases which have come into force.

On May 3, after a preliminary review of the petition, the Supreme Court judge denied in passing it for a revision to the Cassation Board of the Supreme Court.

The judge did not study the documents presented by the GS and explained the denial by referencing outdated documents of 1994, i.e. documents which expired due to foundation of the Ile-Alatau National Park in 1996.

The claimant did not receive reliable information.

On September 6, new information was received by the GS. In this regard, a letter was sent to the Committee of Forestry and Wildlife requesting to do the following voluntarily without initiation of a new lawsuit by the GS because of newly appeared circumstances:
— to acknowledge the information provided in the response of the Committee No.18-02-32/592 КЛХЖМ dated on 10.03.2015, to be invalid, and therefore, unlawful;
— to provide the requested environmental information in full, including all seven points listed in our request, or explain the reasons for its absense;
— to explain the reasons for providing the GS with invalid information and apply penalty in relation to the responsible persons.

On September 23, a reply No.17-1-29/ЗТ-К/164 was received from the Committee of Forestry and Wildlife, in which again the defender provided untruthful information that «…after regular forest management works on the territory of the national park, the Left Talgar canyon was included into a specially protected natural territory.»

The ES did not agree with the Committee’s reply, and on October 10, sent another letter to the Committee requesting to provide full and reliable information.

On October 31, a reply No.17-1-29/ЗТ-К/164,1 received from the Committee did not contain the requested data. Due to the repeated cases when the Committee provided unreliable information, hid the real information about the situation in the national park in the area of Talgar mountain pass from the public, violated the public rights on receiving information stipulated by the national legislation and the Aarhus Convention, the Ecological Society made a decision to initiate a new lawsuit.

The case is closed due to initiation of a new lawsuit.

* * *
No.3
Case about acknowledging the conclusion of the state environmental assessment on the materials of the “Environmental Impact Assessment” on the project “Construction of a road to the mountain ski complex “Kokzhailau” to be illegal and about its cancellation (see the case No.010, 2015).

The lawsuit in the interests of the state and undefined number of people is filed on July 8, 2015, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of the city of Almaty.

The Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management is brought to trial as a defendant.

Legal violation:
1) requirements of the law “About specially protected natural territories” in the part of protection of rare and threatened species of plants are violated (p.1 and p.5 of the Article 32-1, p.4 of the Article 78);

2) requirements of the Article 46 of the Environmental Code defining purposes of an environmental assessment are violated.

Demands:
To acknowledge the conclusion of the state environmental assessment on the materials of the “Environmental Impact Assessment” on the project “Construction of a road to the mountain ski complex “Kokzhailau” to be illegal and to cancel it.

On December 28, the Appeal Board of the Almaty City Court denied satisfying the complaint.

The judge violated the material and procedural law.

Firstly, the judge went beyond the lawsuit demands by reviewing the question about norms of pollutants emission. This question was not disputed by the claimant.

Secondly, the judge recognized as correct the conclusion of the court of the first instance, which said that lands of a specially protected natural territory of the country-wide level, namely Ile-Alatau National Park, are subjected to the “Rules of maintenance and protection of green vegetation of the city of Almaty”. All parties of the process referenced multiple times the paragraph 55 of the above mentioned Rules, which states that the Rules do not apply to specially protected territories of the country-wide level.

The judge deliberately or because of a lack of professionalism ignored the clear guidelines of the paragraph 6, Article 108 of the Land Code, which states that “inclusion of land lots into a city, town, or village limits does not cease property rights or land ownership rights over these lands.” This means that Ile-Alatau National Park was and is a specially protected national territory of the country-wide level, and the named Rules do not apply on its territory.

Thirdly, in violation of the Article 65 and part 2 of the Article 218 of the CPC of the RK, the judge did not consider the circumstances referred to by the GS regarding the fact that none of the state organs of the Republic of Kazakhstan possess an authority to cut or remove plants listed in the Red Book.

Fourthly, during consideration of the forest-pathology examination appeared in the case, the judge incorrectly applied the provisions of the paragraph 1 of the Article 6 of the Law “About normative legal acts” which states: “In case of contradictions in the norms of normative acts of different level, the norms of a higher level act are applied”. The law implies active legal acts. The forest-pathology examination was made based on inactive normative legal act.

On April 30, 2016, a petition about revision of court cases which have come into force was filed in the order of cassation to the Supreme Court.

On June 27, after a preliminary revision of the petition of the GS, the Supreme Court judge denied passing it for a review by the Supreme Court Cassation Board.

In violation of the Article 65 and paragraph 2 of the Article 218 of the CPC of the RK, the judge did not consider the circumstances referred to by the GS regarding the lack of authority in all state organs of the Republic of Kazakhstan to cut or remove plants listed in the Red Book.

The judge exceptionally poorly studied the case materials. He even did not understand that the case was about proposed cutting of the «Red Book plants», and not about already performed cuttings. In the determination, he wrote: «Removal of vegetation was performed by the RSA «Ile-Alatau SNNP» based on received permits». In the documents presented by the GS to the court, it was mentioned multiple times, that no permits to cut the «Red Book plants» exist.

On August 23, a statement with a request based on the Articles 5, 6, 7 of the Law of the RK «About the Prosecutor’s Office» in the set order to review the appeal of the GS about violations of the environmental legislation and to undertake measures to recover the violated lawful interests of the state in the area of protection and preservation of the «Red Book plants», was filed to the General Prosecutor of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

On December 8, due to a lack of response from the Specialized nature protection prosecutor’s office of the city of Almaty, where the General Prosecutor forwarded the statement from the ES to, after three months of waiting, a second letter was sent there again.

The case remains open.

* * *
No.4
Case about inaction of a state authority in controlling of legislation observance in the area of preservation and utilization of sites of historical and cultural heritage, in particularly, in regards of Talgar site of ancient settlement (see the case No.011, 2015).

The lawsuit in defense of the interests of the state and undefined number of people is filed to the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of the city of Astana on September 18, 2015. The Ministry of Culture and Sports of the Republic of Kazakhstan is brought to trial as a defendant.

Legal violations:
in accordance to the Provisions about the Ministry of Culture and Sports of the Republic of Kazakhstan approved by the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated on September 23, 2014, The Ministry is obligated to control legislation observance in the area of preservation and utilization of sites of historical and cultural heritage, which in the given case is not executed by the Ministry.

Demands:
1. To oblige the Ministry of Culture and Sports to take immediate measures as by law enacted for preservation of the site of historical and cultural heritage — Talgar site of ancient settlement.

2. To oblige the Ministry to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with documents requested earlier, in particular, a base architectural plan and a layout map of the area with indication of a preservation zone of the site of historical and cultural heritage.

On October 26, and November 7 and 13, court hearings took place.

On November 13, the court denied satisfying the lawsuit. In violation of the Article 65 of the Civil Procedural Code and part 2 of the Article 218 of the Civil Procedural Code of the RK, the judge did not study the evidence referred to by the GS, in regards to the failure to provide the GS with a schematic map of the area with indication of a preservation zone of the site of historical and cultural heritage; inaction of state authorities in liquidation of garbage dumpsters on the site of ancient settlement and marking the borders of the settlement on the site.

On December 7, a complaint is submitted to the Civil Affaires Appeal Board of the Astana City Court.

On March 2, 2016, the Court Appeal Board denied satisfying the complaint.

The judges violated material and procedural law.

In violation of the Article 72 of the CPC and Part 2 of the Article 218 of the CPC of the RK, the judges did not study the evidence referenced by the GS in regards of the following:
— failure to provide the base architectural plan and layout map of the territory with indication of preservation zone of the site of historical and cultural heritage to the GS;
— inaction of the state authorities in liquidation of garbage dumpsters on the territory of the ancient settlement;
— inaction of the state authorities in on-site marking of the borders of the ancient settlement by special signs;
— failure to take measures to prevent destruction and to preserve the site of historical and cultural heritage — Talgar ancient settlement.

In the determination of the court it was indicated that just recently, on July 28, 2015, “the Ministry supported the decision of the Almaty Oblast Center for preservation of historical and cultural heritage about acquiring a deed over the land lot.” In other words, the Ministry admits that the deed over the land lot was not received until March 2, 2016, although the site was included into the World Heritage List back in 2014.

The court determination mentions a letter of the Ministry dated on October 16, 2015, which says that the Ministry is controlling the question of installing protection signs. In other words, the Ministry admits that before March 2, 2016, the protection signs were not installed.

The judges incorrectly applied the subparagraph 6 of the Article 18 of the Law “About protection and utilization of sites of historical and cultural heritage” which says that the local executive organs of oblasts, cities of the countrywide level, and the capital, “in agreement with the authorized organ, during development and approval of planning, construction and reconstruction projects of the cities and other settlements, assure implementation of measures to determine, study, and preserve monuments of history and culture of all categories, create historical and cultural base plans and map-layouts.”

But the determination of the court, firstly, does not mention that the local authorities are planning a development and approval of the project of planning, construction development, and reconstruction of the city on the territory of the world heritage site — Talgar ancient settlement. Secondly, it does not mention that the authorized organ approved the historical and cultural base plan and map-layout for this territory.

But firstly, the rulling of the judicial board does not indicate that according to the law, the local authorities do not have a right to perform any works on the territory of the world heritage site — Talgar ancient settlement. Secondly, it does not mention that an authorized organ approved the historical and architectural base plan and map-layout for this territory.

On June 6, a petition about revision of court cases which have come into force was filed to the Supreme Court in the order of cassation.

On June 27, after a preliminary revision of the petition of the GS, the Supreme Court judge denied passing it for a review by the Supreme Court Cassation Board.

In violation of the Article 72 and paragraph 2 of the Article 224 of the CPC of the RK, the judge did not study the proves referred to by the GS. He repeated the argumentation of the judges of the Court Appeal Board.

A lawsuit about re-initiation of the case revision because of new circumstances is being prepared to be filed to a court, due to the decision of the World Heritage Committee No.40 COM 7B.34 regarding the ancient settlement Talgar, adopted at the 40th session of the World Heritage Committee which took place from July 10 to 20 in Istambul.

On November 28, a statement about reviewing of the court decision under new circumstances was submitted to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of the city of Astana.

On December 28, the SIEC of the city of Astana informed the ES that the case was under a review by the General Prosecutor’s office. After it is returned, the ES will be notified if the case is accepted for a proceeding.

The case remains open.

* * *
No.5
Case about failure of a state authority to provide environmental information about establishing a protection zone for Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park — a specially protected natural territory of the national level (see the case No.012, 2015).

The lawsuit in defense of the interests of the state and undefined number of people is filed to the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of the city of Almaty on September 18, 2015. The Akimat (Mayor’s Office) of the city of Almaty is brought to trial as a defendant.

Legal violations:
1) requirements of the Law “On Specially Protected Natural Territories” about obligation of the local executive authorities to establish protection zones of specially protected natural territories, in order to assure their protection and defense from unfavorable external impacts (subparagraph 11, paragraph 2, Article 10 and 18), are violated;
2) requirements of the subparagraph 7, paragraph 1, Article 14 of the Environmental Code about obligation of state authorities to provide timely, full and trustworthy environmental information by requests from public associations, are violated.

Demands:
1. To acknowledge the failure of the Akimat of the city of Almaty to provide requested information to the Ecological Society Green Salvation to be inaction.
2. To oblige the Akimat of the city of Almaty to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with all requested information about establishing of a protection zone of Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park.

On October 19, the court made a determination not to accept the lawsuit for a review, because the claimant did not pay the state fee.

On October 21, a private complaint is submitted to the Appeal Board of the Almaty City court, in regards to a disagreement of the Ecological Society Green Salvation with the court’s statement. By submitting lawsuits to courts about inaction of state authorities, the organization defends interests of citizens and the state, and not its own interests.

On December 23, the Board denied satisfying the demand. The judge incorrectly applied the paragraph 10, Article 541 of the Code of the RK “About taxes and other obligatory payments to the budget”. According to the indicated paragraph, “physical and juridical persons who addressed to …a court with a lawsuit in defense of rights and protected by law interests of other persons or the state” do not need to pay the fee.

On March 28, 2016, a letter with a demand to establish a protection zone of a specially protected natural territory Ile-Alatau SNNP was filed for the second time to the Akimat (Mayor’s Office) of the city of Almaty.

The case is terminated due to filing of a statement to a court about failure to act by the Akimat (Mayor’s Office) of the city of Almaty, see the case No.8.
The case is closed.

* * *
No.6
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 the case No.8, 2010; No.2, 2011; No.013, 2015).

The lawsuit in the interests of the residents of the town of Besagash, Talgar District, Almaty Oblast, is filed by the Ecological Society Green Salvation to the Talgar District Court on November 11, 2015. Akim (head) of Besagash Rural District and Head of the co-op “PK Luch Vostoka” were brought to trial as defendants.

Legal violations:
1) lack of the state authority’s action in providing environmental and sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the residents of the town, in violation of the Article 35 of the Law “About local state governance and self-governance in the Republic of Kazakhstan” and the Article 93 of the Land Code, which stipulates forced expropriation of land from its owner, if the land was utilized with gross violations of land use rules stated in the Code or other laws;
2) violation of the citizens’ rights on favorable environment, acknowledges by the subparagraph 1, paragraph 1, Article 13 of the Environmental Code.

Demands:
1. To acknowledge the failure of the Akim of Besagash Rural District to perform his responsibilities in providing residents of the town of Besagash with environmental, sanitary and epidemiological well-being, in accordance with the Land and Environmental Codes, and the failure of the head of the co-op “PK Luch Vostoka” to perform his responsibilities in maintaining and utilizing his property — to be inaction.
2. To oblige the Akim of Besagash Rural District, within his authority, to take immediate measures to recover the environmental conditions in the town of Besagash, in particularly, to oblige the head of the co-op “PK Luch Vostoka” to liquidate the garbage dumpster by demolishing the former boiler house, which represents a life and health threat to people, and to bring the conditions of the land in accordance with the Land and Environmental Code.

From November 30 to December 21, several court hearings took place.

On December 21, the court made a decision about partial satisfaction of the lawsuit demands. The court acknowledged the inaction of the Akim of Besagash Rural District in providing residents of the town of Besagash with sanitary and epidemiological well-being, in accordance with the Land and Environmental Codes.

On December 21, the court made a decision about partial satisfaction of the lawsuit demands. The court admitted the inaction of the akim (mayor) of Besagash rural district in providing sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the residents of Besagash village, in accordance with the Land and Environmental Codes. But, in violation of the paragraph 1, Article 227 of the Civil Procedural Code, in its decision, the court did not indicate, “…which laws these actions (inactions), decision are in contradiction with, and the deadline for implementation of the court decision.”

According to the paragraph 1, Article 227 of the CPC of the RK, the court did not oblige the “state organ,… authorized person and state worker to fully eliminate the violation and recover the violated rights, freedoms, and lawful interests of a citizen or a juridical person…”

On January 12, 2016, a complaint is submitted to the Civil Affaires Appeal Board of the Almaty Oblast Court.

On February 24, the Appeal Board denied satisfying the complaint. the judges violated the material and procedural laws.

The judges of the Appeal Board referred to the proof-less statement for the akim of Besagash rural district that the residents’ requirements to liquidate the garbage dump sites were fully implemented, made a determination about denial in satisfaction of the appeal.

In violation of the Article 72 of the CPC and Part 2 of the Article 218 of the CPC of the RK, the judges did not study the evidence referred to by the GS, in particularly: the illegal dumpster in the village is not liquidated, in other words, the representatives of the Office of the Akim of Besagash rural district were provided false information.

The judges did not indicate that the court of the first instance after acknowledging inaction of the akim, intentionally or due to a lack of professionalism, did not apply the provisions of the paragraph 1 of the Article 227 of the CPC of the RK:
— did not indicate in the decision, according to “…which laws, these actions (inactions), decision are in contradiction with, and the deadline for implementation of the court decision”;
— did not oblige the “state organ,… authorized person and state worker to fully eliminate the violation and recover the violated rights, freedoms, and lawful interests of a citizen or a juridical person…”

On April 22, a petition in the order of cassation concerning revision of court cases which have come into force, was filed to the Supreme Court.

On June 13, after a preliminary revision of the petition, the Supreme Court judge denied passing it for a review by the Supreme Court Cassation Board.

In violation of the Article 72 and paragraph 2, Article 224 of the CPC of the RK, the judge did not study proves referred to by the GS. He repeated the argumentation of the judges of the Appeal Board of the court.

The case is closed. See SECTION No.2. Implementation of court decisions

* * *
No.7
Case about acknowledging to be unlawful and revoking of the «Material of inventory and forest pathology examination of vegetation» (hereafter – Material) prepared by «K…» LLC with violation of the legislation of the RK.

The lawsuit was filed by the GS on May 31, 2016, to the SIEC of the city of Almaty in defense of interests of the state and undefined number of residents of Almaty.
«K…» LLC brought to trial as a defender.

Legal violations:
1) utilization of a normative legal act which does not have a juridical force on the territory of Ile-Alatau National Park and instruction which is not a normative legal act as a legal foundation for preparation of the material;
2) gross violation of the requirements of the laws which stipulate protection and preservation of plants listed in the Red Book of Kazakhstan.

Demands:
1. To acknowledge the «Material of inventory and forest pathology examination of vegetation» (hereafter – Material) prepared by «K…» LLC to be invalid and revoke it.
On June 6, the court denied accepting the lawsuit of the GS, in violation of the sub-paragraph 1-1), paragraph 1, article 14 of the Environmental Code of the RK, according to which the GS has a right to file a lawsuit in defense of undefined number of people. As a reason for denial, the court stated that the disputed material «does not cause legal consequences for the claimant».

On June 17, a private complaint on the SIEC’s determination was filed to the Almaty City Court Civil and Administrative Affaires Appeal Board.

On July 20, the Board denied satisfying the complaint.

The judge ignored the requirements of the paragraph 2 and 3, article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, paragraph 2, article 8 of the CPC of the RK, and sub-paragraph 1-1), paragraph 1, Article 14 of the Environmental Code of the RK, according to which public associations have a right to step forth in defense of interests of other persons and undefined number of people.

The judge incorrectly applied the paragraph 5 of the normative statement of the Supreme Court RK which is related to actions of state organs. The GS lodges a complaint against a document prepared by the LLC and not a state organ.

On October 12, a petition about revision of legal acts entered into a legal force was filed in a cassation order to the Supreme Court.

On November 14, after a preliminary review of the petition, a judge of the Supreme Court denied promoting it for a revision by the cassation instance of the Supreme Court.
The judge literally repeated the wording of the courts of the first and appellate instances, ignored the requirements of the paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, paragraph 2 of the Article 8 of the CPC and subparagraph 1-1), paragraph 1, article 14 of the Environmental Code, according to which public associations have a right to defend interests of other persons and undefined number of people.

The judge of the Supreme Court, either due to a lack of professionalism or intentionally, did not apply normative rulings of the Supreme Court No.1 dated on July 10, 2008 “About application of the norms of international treaties of the Republic of Kazakhstan” and No.1 dated on January 15, 2016, “About the right of access to justice and competences of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan in revision of judicial acts” in which it is emphasized that international treaties have a priority.

The case is closed.

* * *
No. 8
Case about inaction of a public administration organ (Akimat of the city of Almaty) which lead to violation of the law «About specially protected natural territories».

The lawsuit is filed by the GS on May 31, 2016, to the the SIEC of Almaty City Court in defense of the state and undefined number of residents of the city of Almaty. Akimat of the city of Almaty is brought to trial as a defender.

Legal violations:
1) Inaction of the Akimat of the city of Almaty in setting up a conservation zone of a specially protected natural territory of the country-wide level – Ile-Alaatau National Park, and limitation of activity which has a negative impact on the condition of the ecological systems of the park within the conservation zone, and determining a procedure for its protection and utilization.

Demands:
1. Acknowledge the failure of the Akimat of the city of Almaty to meet their responsibilities in setting up a conservation zone of a specially protected natural territory of the country-wide level – Ile-Alatau National Park, to be illegal inaction.
2. In order to ensure integrity and protection from unfavorable external impacts on the territory of Ile-Alatau National Park, oblige the Akimat of the city of Almaty to implement immediately the requirement of the law «About specially protected natural territories» on establishing the conservation zone.

The court denied accepting the lawsuit twice, on June 7 and July 20.

On August 9, the lawsuit was filed for the third time.

Several court hearings took place from September 9 to 27.

On September 28, the court denied satisfying the lawsuit, allegedly because the limitation of action had expired.

With this decision, the court basically admitted that during 10 years(!), the Akimat of the city of Almaty did not follow and is not following the above mentioned requirement of the law.

In the decision of the court it is said: «…According to the Law, determination of conservation zones of specially protected natural territories is a responsibility of the local executive organ (Akimat of the city of Almaty is such an organ – editor’s note). In this part, the argumentation of the claimant is grounded».

«Meanwhile, the court points out the attention of the Akimat of the city of Almaty to its responsibilities stipulated in the Articles 10 and 18 of the Law to take decisions on setting up conservation zones of specially protected natural territories of all types with limitation of activity within these zones which has a negative impact on conditions of the ecological systems of these territories, ecological corridors, and also the procedure of their protection and utilization».

On October 11, an appeal is filed to the Appellate Board of the Almaty City Court.

On November 2, the Appellate Board denied satisfying the appeal.

The judges explained the denial by as if the claimant missed the term of the limitation of actions. But they did not make a judgement over the actions of the judge who, in violation of the law, did not accept the lawsuit of the ES, therefore, creating an obstacle to access justice, in violation of the paragraph 8, Article 3 of the Aarhus Convention. No judgement was made over the actions of a judge who accepted the lawsuit into a proceeding, prepared the lawsuit for hearings, conducted several court hearings, after which discovered that the term of the limitation of actions had passed.

The ES is preparing a petition to the Supreme Court.

The case remains open.

* * *
No. 9
Case about acknowledging actions of an official who provided false information about authority of the Akimat to be unlawful

Lawsuit in the interests of the state and undefined number of people was filed by the GS on June 27, 2016 to the SIEC of the city of Almaty.
Deputy head of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty was brought to trial as a defender.

Legal violations:
1) Action of the deputy head of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty which was expressed in providing of false and incomplete information about authority of the Akimat in establishing a conservation zone of a specially protected natural territory of Ile-Alatau SNNP.

Demands:
1. To acknowledge the provision of the false and incomplete information about establishing a conservation zone of a specially protected natural territory of Ile-Alatau SNNP by the deputy head of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty to be an unlawful action.
2. To oblige the deputy head to provide copies of documents which prove establishment of the conservation zone in Ile-Alatau SNNP (if such documents exist).

On July 26, the SIEC made a determination about returning the case, because of unpaid state fees. The court ignored the fact that, according to the paragraph 10), Article 541 of the Tax Code of the RK, a claimant is exempt from paying the state fee when defending rights of undefined number of people.

On August 4, the case was filed to the court for the second time.

From September 9 to 14, several court hearings took place.

On September 14, the court denied satisfying the lawsuit.

Firstly, the judge incorrectly stated the main point of our request to the Akimat. The GS did not ask to explain “the order of establishing of a conservation zone”! On March 28, 2016, the GS addressed to the Akim of the city of Almaty with a request to immediately make a decision on establishing a conservation zone of the specially protected natural territory (Ile-Alatau SNNP) with limitation of activity within the zone which has a negative impact on the condition of the ecological systems of the national park, and also establish a procedure for its protection and utilization. By this, the judge went beyond the scope of the lawsuit demands violating the requirements of the paragraph 2, Article 225 of the CPC of the RK.

Secondly, the judge ignored the fact that after receiving the false and incomplete information, the GS addressed to the Committee of Forestry and Wildlife. The Committee clearly indicated the article of the law which obliges the akimat to establish the conservation zone. After receiving the letter from the Committee, it became obvious that the Akimat of the city of Almaty intentionally held back about its authority which could not be unknown to it.

Thirdly, the judge partially and incorrectly reviewed the question about providing the false information, but did not consider the question about providing of incomplete information which is also a violation of the rights of the GS and undefined number of people.

Fourthly, the judge did not indicate the fact that in result, the GS still have not received a response from the Akimat of the city of Almaty on the question about its authority.

On October 11, an appeal was filed to the Appellate Board of the Almaty City Court.

On November 2, the Appellate Board denied satisfying the appeal.

In violation of the paragraph 5, Article 420 of the CPC, the judge did not research and did not give an evaluation to the arguments presented in the case. The reiterated arguments of the court of primary jurisdiction which freely interpreted the subparagraph 11, paragraph 2, Article 10 and paragraph 2, Article 18 of the Law «About specially protected natural territories.»

On December 9, a petition about revision of judicial acts entered into legal force was filed to the Supreme Court in a cassation order.

The case remains open.

* * *
No. 10
Case about acknowledging actions of the CSE «Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty» which provided false information, to be unlawful.

Lawsuit in defense of the interests of undefined number of residents of the city of Almaty is filed by the GS on July 25, 2016 to the SIEC of the city of Almaty.
The Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty was brought to trial as a defender.

Legal violations:
1) Action of the deputy head of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty which was expressed in providing the GS with false information about legal succession by «U…» LLC.

Demands:
1. To acknowledge the information provided by the defender — CSE «Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty» — to be false, and therefore, unlawful.
2. To oblige the defender — CSE «Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources Utilization of the city of Almaty» — to provide full and reliable information regarding the status of the «U…» LLC.

On July 28, the SIEC made a determination to deny satisfying the lawsuit of the GS. The SIEC indicated that the lawsuit of the GS allegedly is not subjected to a review in the order of a civil proceeding.

On August 8, the GS filed a private complaint over the determination of the SIEC to the Almaty City Court

The determination of the court was made unlawfully, because the sub-paragraph 7, paragraph 1, article 14 of the Environmental Code of the RK stipulates that public associations have right «to receive timely, full, and reliable environmental information from state organs and organizations». Paragraph 2, Article 18 of the Law «About access to information» stipulates the order of disputing of unlawful limitation of the right on access to information in courts.

When refusing to accept our lawsuit, the court violated the paragraph 4, Article 151 of the CPC of the RK, by not indicating the organ where we need to address, if the case is not subjected to a review and resolution in the order of civil legal proceedings.

On August 24, the Appeal Board of the Almaty City Court denied satisfying the private complaint.

In violation of the paragraph 5, Article 420 of the CPC, the judges did not study and did not give an evaluation to the arguments presented in the case. They literally reiterated the argument of the court of the primary jurisdiction that the information provided by the Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management Regulation has informational purposes and «does not cause legal concequences for the claimant and other persons, does not violate their rights and interests.»

Such conclusion of the judicial board is completely unsustainable, as according to the subparagraph 1-1), paragraph 1, Article 14 of the Environmental Code, public association, such as the ES, «have a right: to appeal to a court in defense of rights, freedoms, and lawful interests of physical and juridical persons, including interests of undefined number of people, in the matter of environmental protection and natural resources utilization.»

On October 26, a petition about revision of judicial acts entered into legal force was filed to the Supreme Court in a cassation order.

On December 12, after a preliminary review of the petition, a judge of the Supreme Court made a determination to forward it for a revision to the Cassation Board of the Supreme Court, which will take place on January 25, 2017.

The case remains open.

* * *
No. 11
Case about acknowledging actions of the Department of Consumers Rights Protection of the city of Almaty which did not provide requested information to be unlawful.

Lawsuit in the interests of undefined number of residenta of the city of Almaty was filed by the GS to the SIEC of the city of Almaty on September 20, 2016.
The Department of Consumers Rights Protection of the city of Almaty is brought to trial as a defendant.

Legal violations:
1) The Department denied providing information of unlimited access, having illegaly qualified it as information with limited access and illegally classifying it as a trade secret.

Demads:
1. To acknowledge the failure to provide information by the Department of Consumers Rights Protection of the city of Almaty, to be an illegal action;
2. To oblige the Department to provide the GS with the requested information in a way of a sanitary and epidemiological conclusion issued to «U…» LLC;
3. To issue a private determination in relation to the head of the Department, according to the Article 70 of the CPC of the RK.

On September 26, the SIEC issued a determination about returning the case because of unpaid state fees. The court ignored that according to the paragraph 10), Article 541 of the Tax Code of the RK, a claimant is exempt from paying the state fees when defending rights of other people.

On September 29, the GS filed the lawsuit to the court for the second time.

Several court hearings took place from October 13 to November 11.

On November 11, the court denied satisfying the lawsuit.

The judge justified the denial by as if the ES is not a proper claimant because it addressed the defendant not directly, but through a laywer. But the laws of the RK do not stipulate that the public must seek information directly and not through a lawyer. Besides, the judge believed that the rigths of the ES were not violated, in spite of the subparagraph 1-1), paragraph 1, Article 14 of the Environmental Code, according to which non-profit organizations «have a right: to appeal to a court in defense of rights, freedoms, and lawful interests of physical and juridical persons, including interests of undefined number of people.»

This decision was taken by the judge at the last hearing. Before that, on October 3, he made a decision to accept the lawsuit and initiate a civil proceeding, after that, he prepared the lawsuit for court hearings. On October 13, he invited the parties for a preliminary court hearing. Following that, he conducted several court hearings, and… suddenly, decided that he is dealing with an improper claimant.

On December 9, an appeal is filed to the Appellate Board of the Almaty City Court.

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).

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 Department of Consumer Rights Protection 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 Department of Protection of Consumer Rights 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 Department of Protection of Consumer Rights 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 Department of Protection of Consumers’ Rights “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, 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.

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.06, 2016).

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 ES 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.

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

SECTION No.1

* * *

No. 1
Case about acknowledging the conclusion of the state environmental assessment to be invalid and about stopping the enterprise’s activity (See case No.04, 2014).

The lawsuit in the interest of residents of Velikolukskaya street is filed on November 4, 2013, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (SIEC) of the city of Almaty.
Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management of the city of Almaty was brought to trial as a defendant.
Legal violations:
1) violation of the Rules of conducting of Environmental Assessment;
2) violation of the Rules of conducting of Public Hearings.
Demands:
1. To acknowledge the conclusion of the state environmental assessment on the project -“Environmental Impact Assessment” of a production workshop for manufacturing of external advertisement — to be invalid.
2. To oblige the Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management Regulation of the city of Almaty to recall the issued conclusion and to ban the enterprise’s activity which causes a negative impact on the environment and the residents’ health.
On December 3, a petition is submitted to the Supreme Court Review Board on Civil Affaires.
On January 15, 2015, the Board denied initiating a review procedure.
The case is closed. The violations are not eliminated.

* * *

No.2
Case about acknowledging a conclusion of the state environmental assessment to be invalid and ceasing the enterprise’s activity. (See case No. 05, 2014)

The statement in the interests of the residents of Bokeykhanov street is filed to the Bostandyk District Court on March 26, 2014.
Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management of the city of Almaty was brought to trial as a defendant.
Legal violations:
1) violation of the Rules of conducting of Environmental Assessment;
2) violation of the Rules of conducting of Public Hearings.
Demands:
1. To acknowledge the conclusion of the state environmental assessment dated on 28.10.2013 on the project “Environmental impact assessment” for an oil change facility located in the city of Almaty on Bokeykhanov street, issued by the municipal state enterprise (MSE) “Department of Natural Resources and Nature Utilization Regulation of the city of Almaty” to be invalid.
2. To oblige the MSE “Department of Natural Resources and Nature Utilization Regulation of the city of Almaty” to recall the issued conclusion and ban the oil change facility’s activity, which has a negative effect on the environment and the residents’ health.
On January 13, 2015, a petition is filed to the Supreme Court Review Board on Civil Affaires with a request to review all court acts made for this case, as a way of control.
On March 5, the Review Board denied initiating a review procedure.
The Board justified its denial by arguments contained in the court acts which were challenged by the claimants. Norms of the Environmental Code are interpreted at their own choosing. The judges ignored abuse of authority committed by the defendant. The Board did not take into account a decision of the court on the lawsuit by the Department of Emergencies of the city of Almaty, which was made in relation to a violation of the fire safety requirements by the defendant: lack of fire protection gap.
The case is closed. Violations are not eliminated.

* * *
No.3
Case about acknowledging a conclusion of the state environmental assessment to be invalid and about recalling it. (See case No.07, 2014)

The lawsuit against the municipal state enterprise (MSE) “Department of Natural Resources and Nature Utilization Regulation of the city of Almaty” in the interests of the residents of the city of Almaty is filed to the Bostandyk District Court of the city of Almaty on June 4, 2014.
Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management of the city of Almaty was brought to trial as a defendant.
Legal violations:
1) violation of the Rules of conducting of Environmental Assessment;
2) violation of the Rules of conducting of Public Hearings.
Demands:
1. To acknowledge the conclusion of the state environmental assessment of the project “Environmental impact assessment” for multi-apartment residential complex of economy class dated on 30.01.2014 conducted by the Department of Natural Resources and Nature Utilization Regulation of the city of Almaty to be invalid.
2. To oblige the Department of Natural Resources and Nature Utilization Regulation of the city of Almaty to recall the conclusion of the state environmental assessment.
On November 4, the Board started reviewing the appeal. The review was postponed, in order to solve a question about appointing an independent environmental assessment group.
On November 11, the judge made a determination satisfying the petition of the claimant about appointing an independent environmental assessment.
On January 20, 2015, Almaty City Court’s Appeal Board denied satisfying the claim as if the claimant “did not present convincing evidence regarding invalidity of the conclusion of the state environmental assessment.”
On March 3, a claim was filed to the Almaty City Court’s Cassation Board.
On April 9, the Cassation Board denied satisfying the claim explaining the denial as if the claimants “did not present the court with objective and reliable evidence.”
On July 10, a petition is filed to the Supreme Court Review Board on Civil Affaires with a request to review all legal acts made regarding this case in an order of inspection.
On September 3, the Review Board denied initiating a review procedure.
The Board explained the denial using the arguments stated in the court actions which were disputed by the claimants earlier. Norms of the Environmental Code regarding Environmental Assessment are interpreted at their own choosing. Articles 278 and 279 of the Civil Procedural Code about disputing actions (or lack of actions) of a state authority, local governing institutions in court and Decree of the Supreme Court dated on December 20, 2010 about application of these articles are also interpreted at their own choosing. The Board did not follow the requirements of the paragraph 3 of the Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, which states that “each Party shall ensure that, …members of the public have access to administrative or judicial procedures to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of its national law relating to the environment.”

The case is closed. Violations are not eliminated.

* * *

No.4
Case about inaction of state authorities which lead to a serious deterioration of ecological situation and violation of human rights on favorable environment. (See case No. 08, 2014)
The lawsuit in the interests of residents of Panfilov village, Talgar District, Almaty Oblast, is filed to the Talgar District Court on July 21, 2014.
Akimat of the town of Panfilov, Department of protection of consumers’ rights in Talgar District, and Akimat of Almaty oblast were brought to trial as defendants.
Legal violations:
1) failure to act in providing ecological and sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the town residents by the authorities;
2) violation of the citizens’ rights on favorable environment.
Demands:
1. To acknowledge the failure of the authorities to perform their responsibilities in providing ecological and sanitary and epidemiological well-being for the residents of Panfilov village – to be inaction.
2. To oblige the defendants to take measures for liquidation of illegal dump sites, demolition of unfinished buildings, bringing the land plots in compliance with the requirements of the Land and Environmental Codes, reconstruction of the central road and lighting of the village.
3. To oblige the Head of the Panfilov Police Department to take measures, in order to find persons who violate the sanitary conditions and to make them accountable.
On September 10, because of a written statement from the Akimat of the rural district to the Talgar Akimat requesting means allocation to get the things in the village in order and beginning of works on providing ecological and sanitary and epidemiological wellbeing, the case was suspended by a statement from the claimants. This statement allows re-applying to the court with the same lawsuit.
Partially, the akimat fulfilled the demands of the residents. Several streets were paved. Because of changes in personnel inside the akimat of the village, further implementation of the residents’ demands will be assigned to the new management of the akimat. In case of a failure to perform their official duties, the court case will be resumed.
The case remains open. Partially, the violations are eliminated, the case is under control.

* * *

No. 5
Case about violation of citizens’ rights on favorable environment resulted from violation of requirements of the environmental, urban planning, and sanitary and epidemiological legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The lawsuit in the interests of the residents of Khozhamyarov street is filed to the Almaly District Court No.2 of the city of Almaty on March 6, 2015.
“Electrocabel plant” Ltd. and the Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management of the city of Almaty were brought to trial as defendants.
Legal violations:
1) As a result of construction along a river bank, citizens’ rights on favorable environment were violated:
— a part of one of the resident’s private property was buried under construction waste;
— a spring flow into the river was covered by the construction waste which resulted in bogging of a part of the private property.
Demands:
1. Charge penalties for causing moral harm;
2. Oblige defendants to:
— clear the private property from the waste;
— remove the construction and other waste from the site;
— clear the spring flow.
On April 8, the first court hearings took place.
On April 21, a field court meeting took place.
Because of new circumstances on the case, the claimants submitted a statement about leaving the lawsuit without a trial which was satisfied by the court.
The case is closed. The violations are not eliminated.

* * *

No.6
Case about failure of a state organ to provide environmental information about construction of a bridge and a road near an archeological monument – Talgar ancient settlement – which belongs to the World Heritage sites.
The lawsuit in the interests of a juridical person is filed in the order of a special proceeding on April 10, 2015, to the Taldykorgan City Court.
Legal violations:
The right of a public association to receive “timely, full, and truthful environmental information from the state organs and organizations” (sub-paragraph 7, paragraph 1, article 14 of the Environmental Code) was violated.
Department of passenger transportation and automobile roads of Almaty Oblast is brought up to a trial as a defendant.
Demands:
1. To acknowledge failure of the Department of passenger transportation and automobile roads of Almaty Oblast to provide requested information to the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” to be inaction violating rights and lawful interest of the juridical person.
2. To oblige the Department to provide the requested information.
On April 17, the court denied to accept the case for a proceeding because the lawsuit is not under jurisdiction of the Taldykorgan City Court.
Due to the court’s violation of procedural requirements about issuing determinations and sending them to the parties involved in the case within lawful timeframes, the claimants received the case materials only on June 5, In order to receive the case materials, the claimants had to address the chairman of the Taldykorgan City Court and chairman of the Supreme Court.
On September 18, the statement is filed to the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of the city of Taldykorgan in the order of special proceeding in the interests of a juridical person.
Court hearings were scheduled for October 7. Before the hearings, a representative of the Department of passenger transportation and automobile roads of Almaty Oblast offered to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with all of the requested information.
On October 21, after studying the provided information, the Ecological Society filed a statement to the court about leaving the case without any further review.
The case is closed. The requested information is received.

* * *
No.7
Case about acknowledging the Environmental Impact Assessment for the project of “Construction of a road to the mountain ski resort “Kokzhailau” to be illegal in the part of preservation of threatened plants listed in the Red Book and about cancellation of the project.
The lawsuit in the interests of the state and undefined number of Almaty residents was filed on April 17, 2015, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (SIEC) of the city of Almaty.
Being a requester of the project, the Department of auto roads of the city of Almaty is brought to trial as a defendant.
Legal violations:
Requirements of the Law “About specially protected natural territories” about protection of rare and threatened species of plants (p.1 32-1, p.5 of the article 32-1 and p.4 of the article 78) are violated
Demands:
1. To acknowledge the project “Construction of a road to the mountain ski resort “Kokzhailau” to be illegal in the part of preservation of threatened plants listed in the Red Book and to cancel the project.
On April 22, the court denied accepting the case for proceeding, as if the case was not subjected to consideration and solving in the order of civil legal proceedings.
On July 3, the lawsuit is filed again to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (SIEC) of the city of Almaty.
On July 7, the court denied accepting the case for proceeding again, as if the case was not subjected to consideration and solving in the order of civil legal proceedings.
On August 13, an appeal is filed to the Appeal Board of the Almaty City Court.
On September 2, the Board denied to satisfy the appeal. The denial was based on the arguments stated in the determination of the court of the first instance which were not subjected to a thorough study. Norms of the Environmental Code regarding Environmental Impact Assessment were interpreted at their own will. Articles 278 and 279 of the Civil Procedural Code of the RK about disputing actions (or lack of actions) of a state authority or local government authority in a court were interpreted at their own will as well. The Board did not base their decision on the paragraph 2, Article 279 of the Civil Procedural Code of the RK which lists decisions and actions of state authorities not subjected to disputing in courts. The Board was not guided by the requirements of the paragraph 3, Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, according to which “each Party shall ensure that, …members of the public have access to administrative or judicial procedures to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of its national law relating to the environment.”
On November 24, a complaint is submitted to the Cassation Board of the Almaty City Court.
On December 15, the Cassation Board of the Almaty City Court began reviewing the complaint, but did not finish it. The review was first postponed to December 22, and then to December 29.
On December 29, the Cassation Board satisfied the complaint and made a statement about sending the case to the SIEC of Almaty and accepting it from the stage of case admission.
The case remains open.

* * *

No.8
Case about untruthful environmental information provided by the Committee of Forestry and Fauna about construction on the territory of a national park.
The Lawsuit in the interests of the state and undefined number of people is filed on May 21, 2015, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of the city of Astana.
The Committee of Forestry and Fauna of the Ministry of Agriculture is brought to trial as a defendant.
Legal violation:
A right of a public association to receive “timely, full, and truthful environmental information from state authorities and organizations” was violated (Environmental Code, Article 14, p.1, sub-p.7; Law “About specially protected natural territories”, Article 13, p.1, sub-p.5).
Demands:
1. To acknowledge the information provided by the defendant to be untruthful, therefore, illegal.
2. To oblige the defendant to provide the requested environmental information in full, including every point indicated in the request.
On June 9, the court made a decision about returning the case because the papers were done incorrectly.
On June 15, the statement is filed to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of the city of Astana again.
On June 23, the case is accepted into a proceeding.
On July 15, a court hearing took place.
On July 24, the court denied satisfying the demands. In violation of the Article 65 and part 2 of the Article 218 of the Civil Procedural Code of the RK, the judge did not review circumstances pointed out by the Ecological Society Green Salvation, and did not study them. As a result, the court decision was based on documents dated in 1994, i.e. active before the Ile-Alatau National Park was founded. The park was founded by a Decree of the Government No.228 dated on February 22, 1996.
On August 13, an appeal was filed to the Appeal Board of the Astana City Court.
On September 16, the Appeal Board denied satisfying the appeal. In violation of the Article 355 of the Civil Procedural Code of the RK, the Board did not study thoroughly the circumstance of the case and did not take into consideration the additional proves presented by the claimants.
A cassation appeal is being prepared.
The case remains open.

* * *

No.9
Case about failure to provide environmental information about conditions of vegetation in the city of Almaty by the Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management.
The Lawsuit in the interests of the state and undefined number of people is filed on June 17, 2015, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (SIEC) of the city of Almaty.
The Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management is brought to trial as a defendant.
Legal violation:
The right of a public association to receive “timely, complete, and truthful environmental information from state organs and organizations” was violated (Environmental Code, Article 14, p.1, sub-p.7).
Demands:
1. To acknowledge the failure to provide requested information to the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” by the Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management of the city of Almaty to be inaction which violated rights and lawful interests of other people and the state.
2. To oblige the Department to provide the requested information in full.
On July 7, the court made a determination refusing to accept the lawsuit for consideration.
On July 10, a private complaint with a request to cancel the determination of the SIEC dated on July 7 as being unlawful and to oblige the court to accept the case for consideration is filed to the Almaty City Court.
On September 2, the complaint was satisfied and the case is sent to the court for initiation of a civil proceeding.
On September 30 and October 12, court hearings took place.
Prior to the next court hearings, a representative of the Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management of the city of Almaty offered to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with the requested information.
On October 28, after studying the provided information, the Ecological Society submitted a statement to the court about leaving the case without any further review.
The case is closed. The requested information is received.

* * *

No.10
Case about acknowledging the conclusion of the state environmental assessment on the materials of the “Environmental Impact Assessment” on the project “Construction of a road to the mountain ski complex “Kokzhailau” to be illegal and about its cancellation.
The lawsuit in the interests of the state and undefined number of people is filed on July 8, 2015, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of the city of Almaty.
The Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management is brought to trial as a defendant.
Legal violation:
— requirements of the law “About specially protected natural territories” in the part of protection of rare and threatened species of plants are violated (p.1 and p.5 of the Article 32-1, p.4 of the Article 78);
— requirements of the Article 46 of the Environmental Code defining purposes of an environmental assessment are violated.
Demands:
To acknowledge the conclusion of the state environmental assessment on the materials of the “Environmental Impact Assessment” on the project “Construction of a road to the mountain ski complex “Kokzhailau” to be illegal and to cancel it.
On July 13, the court made a determination to deny accepting the lawsuit. The court explained the denial by the fact that the Ecological Society Green Salvation (hereafter, ES) addressed the court earlier with a similar statement, which is not true. The ES addressed the court earlier with a request to acknowledge the “Environmental Impact Assessment” for the project of “Construction of a road to the mountain ski complex “Kokzhailau” to be invalid. In the new statement, the ES addresses the court with a request to acknowledge the conclusion of the state environmental assessment on the project of “Environmental Impact Assessment” to be invalid.
Further, the court states that the conclusion of the state environmental assessment can not be subjected to a review under a civil proceeding. Meanwhile, the court does not refer to any laws, based on which the decision was made, which is a violation of the requirements of the Article 252 of the Civil Procedural Code of the RK.
In the determination the court incorrectly indicated that the ES initiated the lawsuit against the Municipal Government Agency “Department of auto roads of the city of Almaty”, while in fact, the ES initiated the lawsuit against the Municipal Government Agency “Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management of the city of Almaty”. The court incorrectly indicated that the conclusion of the state environmental assessment was issued by the “Kazakh Promtransproject” Ltd. In fact, the conclusion of the environmental assessment was developed and issued by the Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management of the city of Almaty.
On August 3, a private complaint is submitted to the Almaty City Court with a request to cancel the determination of the SIEC dated on July 7, as illegal, and to oblige the court to accept the case for a review.
On August 14, the complaint was satisfied and the case was passed to the court for a review.
From September 28 to November 6, several court hearings took place.
On November 6, the court denied satisfying the demands of the ES.
Firstly, the judge exceeded the limits of the lawsuit demands by indicating that the project of EIA “is adjusted with the norms of harmful substances emissions”. This question was not argued by the claimant.
Secondly, during a review of the question about plans of construction of the road on the lands of Ile-Alatau National Park, the judge used a normative legal act (Rules of maintenance and protection of green vegetation of the city of Almaty), which is not applicable to the territory of the national park. All parties of the process referred multiple times to the paragraph 55 of the above mentioned Rules, which states that the Rules are not applicable to specially protected territories of the national level.
The judge ignored specific directions of the paragraph 6, Article 108 of the Land Code which states that “inclusion of lands into a city, town, or village limits does not cease property rights or land utilization rights over these lands”. That means that even after alteration of administrative borders of the city, Ile-Alatau National Park is still a specially protected natural territory of the national level.
Thirdly, in violation of the Article 65 of the Civil Procedural Code and part 2 of the Article 218 of the Civil Procedural Code of the RK, the judge did not review the circumstances referred to by the ES regarding the fact that none of the state organs of the Republic of Kazakhstan is authorized to cut or remove plants listed in the Red Book.
In violation of the Article 355 of the Civil Procedural Code of the RK, the judge did not take into consideration the additional proves presented by the claimants during the process regarding the forest pathology research appearing in the case, which was made based on an expired normative legal act.
On November 25, a claim was submitted to the Appeal Board of the Almaty City Court.
On December 28, the Board denied satisfying the claim.
The case remains open.

* * *

No.11
Case about inaction of a state authority in controlling of legislation observance in the area of preservation and utilization of sites of historical and cultural heritage, in particularly, in regards of Talgar site of ancient settlement. June 25, 2014, Talgar site was included on the World Heritage List.
The lawsuit in defense of the interests of the state and undefined number of people is filed to the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of the city of Astana on September 18, 2015.
The Ministry of Culture and Sports of the Republic of Kazakhstan is brought to trial as a defendant.
Legal violations:
in accordance to the Provisions about the Ministry of Culture and Sports of the Republic of Kazakhstan approved by the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated on September 23, 2014, The Ministry is obligated to control legislation observance in the area of preservation and utilization of sites of historical and cultural heritage, which in the given case is not executed by the Ministry.
Demands:
1. To oblige the Ministry of Culture and Sports to take immediate measures as by law enacted for preservation of the site of historical and cultural heritage — Talgar site of ancient settlement.
2. To oblige the Ministry to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with documents requested earlier, in particular, an architectural base plan and a schematic map of the area with indication of a preservation zone of the site of historical and cultural heritage.
On October 26, and November 7 and 13, court hearings took place.
On November 13, the court denied satisfying the lawsuit. In violation of the Article 65 of the Civil Procedural Code and part 2 of the Article 218 of the Civil Procedural Code of the RK, the judge did not study the evidence referred to by the ES, in regards to the failure to provide the ES with a schematic map of the area with indication of a preservation zone of the site of historical and cultural heritage; inaction of state authorities in liquidation of garbage dumpsters on the site of ancient settlement and marking the borders of the settlement on the site.
On December 7, a complaint is submitted to the Appeal Board of the Astana City Court.
The case remains open.

* * *

No.12
Case about failure of a state authority to provide environmental information about establishing a protection zone for Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park — a specially protected natural territory of the national level.
The lawsuit in defense of the interests of the state and undefined number of people is filed to the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of the city of Almaty on September 18, 2015.
The Akimat (Mayor’s Office) of the city of Almaty is brought to trial as a defendant.
Legal violations:
1) requirements of the Law “On Specially Protected Natural Territories” about obligation of the local executive authorities to establish protection zones of specially protected natural territories, in order to assure their protection and defense from unfavorable external impacts (subparagraph 11, paragraph 2, Article 10 and 18), are violated;
2) requirements of the subparagraph 7, paragraph 1, Article 14 of the Environmental Code about obligation of state authorities to provide timely, full and trustworthy environmental information by requests from public associations, are violated.
Demands:
1. To acknowledge the failure of the Akimat of the city of Almaty to provide requested information to the Ecological Society Green Salvation to be inaction.
2. To oblige the Akimat of the city of Almaty to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with all requested information about establishing of a protection zone of Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park.
On October 19, the court made a determination not to accept the lawsuit for a review, because the claimant did not pay the state fee.
On October 21, a private complaint is submitted to the Appeal Board of the Almaty City court, in regards to a disagreement of the Ecological Society Green Salvation with the court’s statement. By submitting lawsuits to courts about inaction of state authorities, the organization defends interests of citizens and the state, and not its own interests.
On December 23, the Board denied satisfying the demand. The judge incorrectly applied the paragraph 10, Article 541 of the Code of the RK “About taxes and other obligatory payments to the budget”. According to the indicated paragraph, “physical and juridical persons who addressed to …a court with a lawsuit in defense of rights and protected by law interests of other persons or the state” do not need to pay the fee.
The case remains open.

* * *

No.13
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.
The lawsuit in the interests of the residents of the town of Besagash, Talgar District, Almaty Oblast, is filed by the Ecological Society Green Salvation to the Talgar District Court on November 11, 2015.
Akim (head) of Besagash Rural District and Head of the co-op “PK Luch Vostoka” were brought to trial as defendants.
Legal violations:
1) lack of the state authority’s action in providing environmental and sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the residents of the town, in violation of the Article 35 of the Law “About local state governance and self-governance in the Republic of Kazakhstan” and the Article 93 of the Land Code, which stipulates forced expropriation of land from its owner, if the land was utilized with gross violations of land use rules stated in the Code or other laws;
2) violation of the citizens’ rights on favorable environment, acknowledges by the subparagraph 1, paragraph 1, Article 13 of the Environmental Code.
Demands:
1. To acknowledge the failure of the Akim of Besagash Rural District to perform his responsibilities in providing residents of the town of Besagash with environmental, sanitary and epidemiological well-being, in accordance with the Land and Environmental Codes, and the failure of the head of the co-op “PK Luch Vostoka” to perform his responsibilities in maintaining and utilizing his property — to be inaction.
2. To oblige the Akim of Besagash Rural District, within his authority, to take immediate measures to recover the environmental conditions in the town of Besagash, in particularly, to oblige the head of the co-op “PK Luch Vostoka” to liquidate the garbage dumpster by demolishing the former boiler house, which represents a life and health threat to people, and to bring the conditions of the land in accordance with the Land and Environmental Code.
From November 30 to December 21, several court hearings took place.
On December 21, the court made a decision about partial satisfaction of the lawsuit demands. The court acknowledged the inaction of the Akim of Besagash Rural District in providing residents of the town of Besagash with sanitary and epidemiological well-being, in accordance with the Land and Environmental Codes.
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 RoK.

No. 1
Decision of the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of the city of Almaty dated on September 10, 2007, “About inaction of the state authorities which lead to formation of an illegal dump site” (See the case No.7, 2007).
Not implemented.

No.2
Decision of the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of the city of Astana dated on July 1, 2010, “About inaction of the government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and about acknowledging the conclusion of the Senior Sanitary Inspector about reduction of the sanitary and protection zone to be invalid” (See the case No.1, 2010).
Due to the fact that the defendants refused to follow the court’s decision at their own will, the claimant submitted an act of execution for a forced implementation of the decision. But neither the department of court executors, nor the Prosecutor’s Office take any efficient measures.
On August 28, 2013, an act of execution was re-submitted to the Head of the Department of Court Acts Execution of the West Kazakhstan oblast.
On October 24, a letter about inaction of the Department of Court Acts Execution of the West Kazakhstan oblast was sent to the Court Acts Execution Committee of the Ministry of Justice.
Not implemented.

No.3
Decision of the Talgar City Court dated on August 28, 2012, “About inaction of authorities which lead to formation of an illegal dump site in Panfilov village, Talgar District, Almaty oblast (See the case No.7, 2012).
On July 21, 2014, a new statement was filed in the interests of the residents of Panfilov village, Talgar District Court (See the case No. 8, 2014).
Not implemented.

No. 4
Decision of the SIEC of Almaty oblast dated on May 16, 2013, on the lawsuit about failure to provide environmental information by the Department of Land Relations and Department of Architecture and Urban Development of Karasai district of Almaty oblast. (See the case No.2, 2013).
On September 2, a letter with a request to implement the court decision and inform about its implementation within the period of time identified by the law was sent to the Head of the Department of Court Acts Execution of Karasai District.
Not implemented.

No.5
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).
On October 3, 2014, because of a failure to perform the court decision, a new lawsuit was filed with a demand 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 admitted the violations 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 Department of Consumer Rights Protection 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.

Not implemented.

 

Rights and legal interests of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” are defended in court by lawyer Svetlana Philippovna Katorcha.

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

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.

 

 

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

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

The lawsuit was filed in the interests of citizens on February 14, 2007 in the Court of the City of Uralsk, and then in the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Western Kazakhstan Oblast (SIEC WKO).

The lawsuit demands:

1. To recognize the actions of the defendant—the Head of the Statistics Department of Western Kazakhstan Oblast, who refused to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with requested information regarding emissions of polluted matter into the atmosphere by the enterprise “Karachaganak Petroleum Operating, B.V.”—in violation of the rights and legal interests of a natural entity.

2. To require the defendant to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with the requested information.

3. To submit a court ruling to the Statistics Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the lack of compliance with the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the part of the Head of the Statistics Department of Western Kazakhstan Oblast.

On May 7, the SIEC WKO refused to satisfy the lawsuit demands.
On June 12, the Board of Appeals for Civic Affairs of the Western Kazakhstan Oblast Court retained the decision of the SIEC WKO without changes, and the appellate complaint without satisfaction.
The Review Board of the Western Kazakhstan Oblast Court refused to file a complaint for review.
In December, a complaint for review was filed with the Supreme Court’s Review Board on Civic Affairs.
On March 26, 2008, the Supreme Court’s Review Board on Civic Affairs made a decision on the satisfaction of the complaint: “The decision of the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Western Kazakhstan Oblast from May 7, 2007 and the court ruling by the Board on Civ ic Affairs of the Western Kazakhstan Oblast Court from June 12, 2007 have been repealed. The Statistics Department of Western Kazakhstan Oblast is required to provide the ES Green Salvation with the requested environmental information.” A decision substantiated by the statutes of the Aarhus Convention!

The decision entered into legal force. On April 29, 2008, The Statistics Department of Western Kazakhstan Oblast provided the requested information.

* * * 

2. Lawsuit on the Refusal of the Subsidiary State Enterprise “AlmatygorNPTSzem”
to Provide Environmental Information.

The lawsuit was filed in the interests of local residents on September 24, 2007 in the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Almaty City.

The lawsuit demands:

1. To recognize the actions of the defendant—the Director of “AlmatygorNPTSzem”, who refused to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with a copy of the state act on the right to private ownership of a land plot, which was allocated as a water conservation zone, as well as information on its registration in the “Center for Real Estate of Almaty City”—as an omission.

2. To require the Director of “AlmatygorNPTSzem” to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with a copy of the state act on the land plot, and information on its registration with the “Center for Real Estate of Almaty City”.

3. To submit a court ruling to the Akim of Almaty City on the lack of compliance with the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the part of the Director of “AlmatygorNPTSzem”.

On November 23, the Court refused to satisfy the lawsuit demands.

The verdict was received on January 31, 2008.
On February 5, an oversight complaint was submitted to the Review Board on Civic Affairs of the Almaty City Court.
On April 1, the Review Board issued a decree of the court on the partial satisfaction of the complaint. The court ruling was denied.
The decision entered into legal force.
The subsidiary state enterprise “AlmatygorNPTSzem” provided the information.

* * * 

3. Lawsuit on the Repeal of the Decision by the Akimat of Almaty City on the Allocation of the Land Plot
in the Water Protection Strip of the Yesentai River, which is under Private Construction.

The lawsuit was filed in the interests of local residents on January 8, 2008 in the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Almaty City, and then on January 17 in Court No. 1 of the Bostandykskу District of Almaty City, and then on February 1 in the Medeu District Court of Almaty City.

The lawsuit demands:

1. To recognize as illegal the decision of the Akimat of Almaty City to grant the right of private ownership of the land plot and a buy/sell agreement for this land plot, and to repeal them.

2. To recognize as illegal the State Act on the Right to Private Property on the land provided to “AlmatygorNPTSzem”, and repeal it.

3. To require the owners to remove all of the waste from the aforementioned land plot, located in the water protection strip, and to recultivate the plot.

4. To issue a court ruling on the violations of the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan by state bodies.

On January 14, the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court refused to admit the lawsuit in connection with the court’s lack of jurisdiction.
On January 17, the lawsuit was filed with Court No. 1 of the Bostandykskу District of Almaty City.
On January 24, Court No. 1 of the Bostandykskу District refused to admit the lawsuit in connection with the court’s lack of jurisdiction.
On February 1, the lawsuit was filed in the Medeu District Court of Almaty City.
On April 22, the Medeu District Court refused to satisfy the lawsuit.
On May 5, the Board of Appeals for Civic Affairs of the Almaty City Court rejected the appellate complaint.
On July 8, a complaint for review was filed in the Review Board on Civic Affairs of the Almaty City Court.
On July 16, the Review Board on Civic Affairs of the Almaty City Court refused to consider the complaint for review.
On July 31, a complaint for review was filed with the Supreme Court’s Review Board on Civic Affairs.
On September 25, the Supreme Court’s Review Board on Civic Affairs refused to renew the complaint.

* * * 
4. Lawsuit against the Administrator of the Courts of Almaty City
for Failing to Implement the Decision of the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Almaty City
regarding the Liquidation of the Unsanctioned Dumping Ground
for Construction and Household Waste by the “Chimbulak” Mountain Ski Resort.

The lawsuit was filed on May 19, 2008, in the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (SIEC) of Almaty City.

The lawsuit demands:

1. To recognize as an omission the failure of the Administrator of the Courts to implement the September 10, 2007 decision by the SIEC of Almaty City.

2. To oblige the Administrator of the Courts of Almaty City to implement the September 10, 2007 decision the SIEC, in accordance with the Law “On Executive Legal Proceedings”.

On May 23, the SIEC refused to admit the lawsuit in connection with the court’s lack of jurisdiction.
On June 9, the lawsuit was filed in Court No. 1 of the Bostandyksky District of Almaty City.
On June 11, Court No. 1 of the Bostandyksky District refused to admit the lawsuit in connection with the court’s lack of jurisdiction.
On June 20, a private complaint was filed in the Almaty City Court.
On July 23, the Board on Civic Affairs of the Almaty City Court determined the jurisdiction.
On August 26, the lawsuit was filed for a second time in the SIEC.
On October 2, the SIEC began to review the lawsuit.
On October 21, the SIEC of Almaty City made a decision on the satisfaction of the complaint. The decision entered into legal force.

For more detailed information, please see…

* * * 

5. Lawsuit on the Government of Kazakhstan’s Failure to Act,
which has Led to the Violation of the Rights and Legal Interests of Citizens,
and on Acknowledging as Invalid the Conclusion of the Senior Sanitary Doctor
regarding the Reduction of the Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ).

The lawsuit was submitted in the interests of the residents of the village of Berezovka (Western Kazakhstan Oblast) on June 19, 2008 in the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court 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. To recognize that the Government’s failure to take measures to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, specifically to ensure the legality and safety of the residents of the village of Berezovka, who have had to live within the Sanitary Protection Zone, is a violation of the rights of citizens to a healthy environment.

2. To recognize the Government’s failure to control the activities of the Ministries and other central and local executive bodies in regards to implementing laws and international agreements.

3. To recognize the Government’s failure to comply with its obligations by committing violations to the provisions of the Aarhus Convention (Articles 3.2, 3.3, 3.9, 4 and 6) and the 1997 Law “On Environmental Assessment” (Articles 13, 14, 15.1, 16 and 36) when deciding to reduce the SPZ.

4. To recognize as invalid the conclusion of the Senior State Sanitary Doctor (#07-2, January 16, 2004) in the Addendum to the Draft “The Sanitary Protection Zone of the Karachaganak Oil and Gas Condensate Field” from December 25, 2003.

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

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

7. To recover the trial expenses from the defendant.

On June 23, the SIEC refused to accept the lawsuit in connection with the court’s lack of jurisdiction.
On July 7, the lawsuit was filed in the Almaty District Court of Astana City.
On July 15, the Almaty District Court of Astana City made a determination to halt the lawsuit without motion in connection with the need to incorporate changes into the lawsuit.
On July 31, an addendum to the lawsuit was sent to the Almaty District Court of Astana City.
On August 5, the Almaty District Court of Astana City refused to accept the lawsuit.
On September 29, a complaint was filed to the Astana City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs.
On December 11, the Astana City Court’s Board on Civic Affairs issued a decision on the satisfaction of the complaint and directed the lawsuit to be reviewed by the Almaty District Court of Astana City.

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

The lawsuit was submitted on October 9, 2008, in 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 October 20, the court began to review the lawsuit.
On November 27, the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast issued a decision on the 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.

* * * 
7. Lawsuit on Banning All Types of Economic Activity in the Water Protection Strip
of the Yesentai River (Almaty City),
and Releasing the Land Plot from Construction 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 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 November 7, the court began to review the lawsuit.
On December 18, the Medeu District Court of Almaty City refused to satisfy the lawsuit requirements.

* * * 
8. 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 Ecological Code.

On November 7, the court began to review the lawsuit.

The lawsuit review was postponed until early 2009.

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

* The lawsuit on the refusal of the Statistics Department of Western Kazakhstan Oblast to provide environmental information is represented in court by Pavel Mikhailovich Kochetkov, Director of the Western Kazakhstan Branch of Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law.

** The rights and legal interests of the Ecological Society Green Salvation are represented by Alexander Anatolyevich Shitov in the lawsuit on the refusal of the Statistics Department of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast to provide environmental information.
Translated by Michelle Kinman.

 

 

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