{"id":8089,"date":"2014-12-30T15:23:32","date_gmt":"2014-12-30T09:23:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8089"},"modified":"2017-09-11T17:19:25","modified_gmt":"2017-09-11T11:19:25","slug":"summary-of-judicial-practice-of-the-ecological-society-green-salvation-in-2014","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8089","title":{"rendered":"Summary of Lawsuits in 2014 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation"},"content":{"rendered":"<style type=\"text\/css\"><\/style><p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>SECTION No.1<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>No. 1<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>Case about acknowledging of a normative legal act \u2013 \u201cRules of conducting of public hearings\u201d \u2013 to be contradictory to the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan and international agreement \u2013 Aarhus Convention<\/strong> (See the case No.4, 2012 and case No.1, 2013).<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit is filed on April 9, 2012, in the interests of residents of Bokeykhanov street, city of Almaty, to the Essil District Court of the city of Astana.<\/p>\n<p>Demands:<br \/>\n1. To acknowledge the \u201cRules of conducting of public hearings\u201d, signed on May 7, 2007, by a decree of the Minister of Environmental Protection, No.135-p, to be contradictory to the requirements of the Aarhus Convention, Environmental Code, and Law \u201cAbout normative legal acts\u201d, i.e. invalid in the full extent.<br \/>\n2. To oblige the Ministry of Justice to cancel registration of the \u201cRules of conducting of public hearings\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>On December 23, 2013, at a preliminary meeting, the Review Board of the Supreme Court took a decision about initiation of a review process.<br \/>\nOn February 4, 2014, the Board made a statement about leaving the petition without satisfaction. The Board did not find any violation of material and procedural law. The Board came to a conclusion that the Rules were brought to conformance with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention. It was not taken into consideration that the amendments were introduced into the Rules only after the public addressed the court, and that some of the amendments were offered by the claimants. The judges were not embarrassed by the fact that in December 2013, in its National Report about implementation of the Aarhus Convention prepared for the Fifth Meeting of the Parties of the Convention, the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources admitted that the new edition of the Rules \u201cdoes not exclude a possibility of conducting of public hearings as a mere formality without a comprehensive accountability of all possible consequences of planned economic activity, i.e. basic principles of the EIA\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>The case is closed.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>No. 2<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>Case about inaction of the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources expressed in a failure to comply with their responsibilities of efficient utilization of the state property for the public\u2019s good and responsibilities to conduct control over integrity of the property of the Republic\u2019s juridical person \u2013 Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park<\/strong> (See the case No.05, 2013).<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit in the public\u2019s interests was filed by the Ecological Society Green Salvation (ES) on June 3, 2013, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (SIEC) of the city of Astana.<\/p>\n<p>Demands:<br \/>\n1. To acknowledge failure of the Ministry of Environmental Protection to comply with its direct responsibilities of efficient utilization of the state property for the public good and to conduct control over integrity of the property of the Republic\u2019s juridical person \u2013 Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park, to be inaction.<br \/>\n2. To acknowledge failure of the vice-minister of Environmental Protection, Iskakov Marlen Nurakhmetovich, to comply with its direct responsibilities of efficient utilization of the state property for the public good and to conduct control over integrity of the property of the Republic\u2019s juridical person \u2013 Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park, to be inaction.<br \/>\n3. To oblige the Ministry of Environmental Protection to undertake measures to prevent construction of the new mountain ski resort \u201cKokzhailau\u201d on the territory of the national park, in order to efficiently utilize the state property for the public good.<\/p>\n<p>On December 10, 2013 the Appeal Board refused to satisfy the private complaint, as the ES did not pay the state fees and as if did not provide documents proving the facts presented in the statement.<br \/>\nThe Appeal Board did not take into consideration the question of the ES about violation of the norms of the Civil Procedural Code by the court staff, as a result of which the deadline for appealing the determination dated on September 10 was missed.<br \/>\nOn January 15, 2014, the lawsuit is filed for the second time to the Yessil District Court of the city of Astana.<br \/>\nOn January 27, the case was returned for the second time as if of a lack of jurisdiction.<br \/>\nOn February 12, a statement with a request to determine jurisdiction was submitted to the Court of the city of Astana.<br \/>\nOn February 20, the court did not determine the jurisdiction, but offered the claimants to appeal the determination of the Yessil District Court of the city of Astana dated on January 27, 2014.<br \/>\nOn March 19, the lawsuit is filed for the third time to the Yessil District Court of the city of Astana.<br \/>\nOn March 31, the lawsuit is returned for the third time, as if of a lack of jurisdiction.<br \/>\nOn April 25, a private complaint over the determination of the judge of the Yessil District Court is filed to the Appeal Board of the Court of the city of Astana.<\/p>\n<p>The case remains open.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>No. 3<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>Case about acknowledging of the conclusion of the state environmental assessment &#8212; preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment of the project of mountain ski resort \u201cKokzhailau\u201d &#8212; to be invalid<\/strong> (See the case No.06, 2013).<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit in public interests was filed on October 7, 2013, to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (SIEC) of the city of Almaty.<br \/>\nDemand:<br \/>\nTo acknowledge the conclusion of the state environmental assessment of the preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment of the feasibility study of the project of mountain ski resort \u201cKokzhailau\u201d dated on April 13, 2013, conducted by the Department of Natural Resources and Nature Management Regulation of the city of Almaty &#8212; to be invalid.<\/p>\n<p>On December 12, 2013, an appeal against the decision of the SIEC is filed to the Almaty City Court.<br \/>\nAccording to the Civil Procedural Code (CPC) of the RK, an appeal shall be filed within 15 days after receiving a decision. Having received an appeal, a judge must, no later than the next day, forward copies of the appeal to the persons participating in the case. After a deadline for appealing has passed, the judge must forward the case to the Appeal Board, while notifying in an appropriate manner the persons participating in the case about place and time of the case review in the appeal instance.<br \/>\nBut after the specified deadline has passed, the ES did not receive a notification about forwarding the case with the appeal to the Almaty City Court. Chancellery of the Court did not receive the appeal from the SIEC neither in December 2013, nor in January 2014! The judge of the SIEC simply \u201cforgot\u201d to send the appeal by its destination!<br \/>\nOn January 31, 2014, a claim was submitted to the chairman of the Almaty City Court. The claim particularly states that violations of requirements of the CPC became systematic. Very often, staff of court chancelleries and secretaries of judges do not notify claimants about schedules of court hearings, do not timely send them court decisions, statements, and determinations. Legal proceedings would drag for months. All of these lead to a negative people\u2019s attitude towards the work of courts, not to mention mistrust to decisions and statements adopted by the judges.<br \/>\nOn March 5, by a statement from the defendant, the review process of the appeal was postponed.<br \/>\nOn March 18, the Appeal Board of the Almaty City Court refused to satisfy the claim.<br \/>\nDuring review of the claim, the judge grossly violated norms of the material law and agreed with the conclusions of the district court:<br \/>\n&#8212; practically, did not consider carefully the subject reviewed;<br \/>\n&#8212; allowed random interpretation of the legislation;<br \/>\n&#8212; repeated mistakes of the court of the first instance during review of the question about authority of local power officials.<br \/>\nOn June 5, an appeal is filed to the Cassation Board of the Almaty City Court.<br \/>\nThe case remains open.<\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>No.4<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>Case about acknowledging the conclusion of the state environmental assessment to be invalid and about stopping the enterprise\u2019s activity<\/strong> (See case No.07, 2013).<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Demands:<br \/>\n1. To acknowledge the conclusion of the state environmental assessment on the project -\u201cEnvironmental Impact Assessment\u201d of a production workshop for manufacturing of external advertisement &#8212; to be invalid.<br \/>\n2. 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\u2019s activity which causes a negative impact on the environment and the residents\u2019 health.<br \/>\nFrom December 30, 2013, to January 28, 2014, several court hearings took place.<br \/>\nOn February 3, 2014, because the judge accepted the case which is outside of jurisdiction of the court, the judge made a determination about leaving the case without consideration.<br \/>\nOn March 20, the lawsuit is filed to Bostandyk District Court of the city of Almaty.<br \/>\nOn March 28, the court made a determination to leave the case without a movement, as if the lawsuit was made incorrectly.<br \/>\nOn April 10, the lawsuit is filed for the second time to the Bostandyk District Court of the city of Almaty.<br \/>\nFrom April 22 to June 4, several court hearings took place.<br \/>\nOn June 18, the court refused to satisfy the lawsuit demands. The judge allowed a random interpretation of the requirements of the Environmental Code regarding conducting of public hearings, ignored the conclusions of the mayor\u2019s office about violations taken place during the public hearings. At the same time, the court admitted that the entrepreneur violates rights of the citizens living in the direct vicinity of the enterprise, and acknowledged the inaction of the \u201csanitary service\u201d which does not undertake appropriate measures. The later received a private determination.<br \/>\nOn June 26, an appeal is submitted to the Appeal Board of the Almaty City Court.<\/p>\n<p>The case remains open.<\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>No.5<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>Case about acknowledging a conclusion of the state environmental assessment to be invalid and ceasing the enterprise\u2019s activity.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The statement in the interests of the residents of Bokeykhanov street is filed to the Bostandyk District Court on March 26, 2014.<\/p>\n<p>Demands:<br \/>\n1. To acknowledge the conclusion of the state environmental assessment dated on 28.10.2013 on the project \u201cEnvironmental impact assessment\u201d for an oil change facility located in the city of Almaty on Bokeykhanov street, issued by the municipal state enterprise (MSE) \u201cDepartment of Natural Resources and Nature Utilization Regulation of the city of Almaty\u201d to be invalid.<br \/>\n2. To oblige the MSE \u201cDepartment of Natural Resources and Nature Utilization Regulation of the city of Almaty\u201d to recall the issued conclusion and ban the oil change facility\u2019s activity, which has a negative effect on the environment and the residents\u2019 health.<br \/>\nOn March 31, the court issued a determination about leaving the case without a movement, as if the lawsuit papers were made incorrectly.<br \/>\nOn April 4, due to the fact that the case was left without consideration, a letter was sent to the chairman of the Bostandyk District Court.<br \/>\nFrom May 13 to 29, several court hearings took place.<br \/>\nOn June 4, the court refused to satisfy the lawsuit demands. The judge allowed a random interpretation of the requirements of the Environmental Code regarding the processes of conducting of public hearings and environmental assessment.<br \/>\nOn June 17, an appeal is filed to the Appeal Board of the Almaty City Court.<\/p>\n<p>The case remains open.<\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>No.6<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>Case about acknowledging public hearings and protocol of the hearings regarding materials of feasibility study of allocation of lands of a specially protected natural territory Ile-Alatau State Natural Park into lands of reserve for construction of a mountain ski resort \u201cKokzhailau\u201d to be invalid.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit in the interests of residents of the city of Almaty is filed to the Medeu District Court of the city of Almaty on April 2, 2014.<\/p>\n<p>Demands:<br \/>\n1. To acknowledge public hearings regarding materials of feasibility study of allocation of lands of a specially protected natural territory Ile-Alatau State Natural Park into lands of reserve for construction of a mountain ski resort \u201cKokzhailau\u201d to be illegal, and therefore, invalid.<br \/>\n2. To acknowledge the protocol of the public hearings regarding materials of feasibility study of allocation of lands of a specially protected natural territory Ile-Alatau State Natural Park into lands of reserve for construction of a mountain ski resort \u201cKokzhailau\u201d to be illegal, and therefore, invalid.<\/p>\n<p>On April 7, the judge refused to accept the lawsuit. The judge thinks that \u201cit cannot be reviewed and solved in the order of civil legal proceedings, as the disputed by the claimants public hearings and protocol do not cause any juridical consequences\u201d.<br \/>\nOn April 14, a private complaint is sent to the Appeal Board of the Almaty City Court.<br \/>\nOn May 26, the Board satisfied the complaint of the claimants and cancelled the determination of the judge, obliging him to review the case to the point.<br \/>\nOn June 24, without any explanations, the judge made a determination about stopping the proceedings on the case.<br \/>\nOn June 26, a second private appeal is filed to the Appeal Board of the Almaty City Court.<br \/>\nThe case remains open.<\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>No.7<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>Case about acknowledging a conclusion of the state environmental assessment to be invalid and about recalling it.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit against the municipal state enterprise (MSE) \u201cDepartment of Natural Resources and Nature Utilization Regulation of the city of Almaty\u201d 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.<\/p>\n<p>Demands:<br \/>\n1. To acknowledge the conclusion of the state environmental assessment of the project \u201cEnvironmental impact assessment\u201d 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.<br \/>\n2. 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.<\/p>\n<p>On June 23, the case reviewing process was started.<br \/>\nThe case remains open.<\/p>\n<p>* * *<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>SECTION No.2<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>Implementation of court decisions<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cCourt decisions which came into legal force \u2026 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\u201d, p.2, article 21, Civil Procedural Code of the RoK.<\/p>\n<p>No. 1<br \/>\nDecision of the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of the city of Almaty dated on September 10, 2007, \u201cAbout inaction of the state authorities which lead to formation of an illegal dump site\u201d (See the case No.7, 2007).<br \/>\nNot implemented.<\/p>\n<p>No.2<br \/>\nDecision of the Specialized Inter-Regional Economic Court of the city of Astana dated on July 1, 2010, \u201cAbout 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\u201d (See the case No.1, 2010).<br \/>\nDue to the fact that the defendants refused to follow the court\u2019s 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\u2019s Office take any efficient measures.<br \/>\nOn 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.<br \/>\nOn 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.<br \/>\nNot implemented.<\/p>\n<p>No.3<br \/>\nDecision of the Talgar City Court dated on August 28, 2012, \u201cAbout 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).<br \/>\nNot implemented.<\/p>\n<p>No. 4<br \/>\nDecision 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).<br \/>\nOn 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.<br \/>\nNot implemented.<br \/>\nNo.5<br \/>\nA 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).<br \/>\nNot implemented.<br \/>\nRights and legal interests of the Ecological Society \u201cGreen Salvation\u201d are defended in court by lawyer Svetlana Philippovna Katorcha.<br \/>\n<em><strong>Translated by Sofya Tairova.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=17197\">Summary of Lawsuits in 2017 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation<\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=12453\">Summary of Lawsuits in 2016 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation<\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8278\">Summary of Lawsuits in 2015 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation<\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8089\">Summary of Lawsuits in 2014 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation<\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8095\">Summary of Lawsuits in 2013 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation<\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8101\">Summary of Lawsuits in 2012 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation<\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8106\">Summary of Lawsuits in 2011 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation<\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8290\">Summary of Lawsuits in 2010 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation<\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8291\">Summary of Lawsuits in 2009 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation<\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8292\">Summary of Lawsuits in 2008 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation<\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8293\">Summary of Lawsuits in 2007 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>SECTION No.1 &nbsp; No. 1 Case about acknowledging of a normative legal act \u2013 \u201cRules of conducting of public hearings\u201d \u2013 to be contradictory to the laws of the Republic&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[948,143],"tags":[433],"class_list":["post-8089","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal_proceedings","category-news","tag-legal-proceedings"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8089","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8089"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8089\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17213,"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8089\/revisions\/17213"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}