{"id":8292,"date":"2008-08-14T14:35:03","date_gmt":"2008-08-14T08:35:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8292"},"modified":"2017-09-11T17:32:58","modified_gmt":"2017-09-11T11:32:58","slug":"summary-of-lawsuits-in-2008-by-the-ecological-society-green-salvation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/?p=8292","title":{"rendered":"Summary of Lawsuits in 2008 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation"},"content":{"rendered":"<style type=\"text\/css\"><\/style><p><strong>1. Lawsuit on the Refusal by the Statistics Department of Western Kazakhstan Oblast<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>to Provide Environmental Information*<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>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).<\/p>\n<p><em>The lawsuit demands:<\/em><\/p>\n<p>1. To recognize the actions of the defendant\u2014the 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 \u201cKarachaganak Petroleum Operating, B.V.\u201d\u2014in violation of the rights and legal interests of a natural entity.<\/p>\n<p>2. To require the defendant to provide the Ecological Society Green Salvation with the requested information.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>On May 7, the SIEC WKO refused to satisfy the lawsuit demands.<br \/>\nOn 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.<br \/>\nThe Review Board of the Western Kazakhstan Oblast Court refused to file a complaint for review.<br \/>\nIn December, a complaint for review was filed with the Supreme Court\u2019s Review Board on Civic Affairs.<br \/>\nOn March 26, 2008, the Supreme Court\u2019s Review Board on Civic Affairs made a decision on the satisfaction of the complaint: \u201cThe 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.\u201d A decision substantiated by the statutes of the Aarhus Convention!<\/p>\n<p>The decision entered into legal force. On April 29, 2008, The Statistics Department of Western Kazakhstan Oblast provided the requested information.<\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>2. Lawsuit on the Refusal of the Subsidiary State Enterprise \u201cAlmatygorNPTSzem\u201d<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>to Provide Environmental Information<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit was filed in the interests of local residents on September 24, 2007 in the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Almaty City.<\/p>\n<p><em>The lawsuit demands:<\/em><\/p>\n<p>1. To recognize the actions of the defendant\u2014the Director of \u201cAlmatygorNPTSzem\u201d, 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 \u201cCenter for Real Estate of Almaty City\u201d\u2014as an omission.<\/p>\n<p>2. To require the Director of \u201cAlmatygorNPTSzem\u201d 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 \u201cCenter for Real Estate of Almaty City\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>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 \u201cAlmatygorNPTSzem\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>On November 23, the Court refused to satisfy the lawsuit demands.<\/p>\n<p>The verdict was received on January 31, 2008.<br \/>\nOn February 5, an oversight complaint was submitted to the Review Board on Civic Affairs of the Almaty City Court.<br \/>\nOn April 1, the Review Board issued a decree of the court on the partial satisfaction of the complaint. The court ruling was denied.<br \/>\nThe decision entered into legal force.<br \/>\n<strong>The subsidiary state enterprise \u201cAlmatygorNPTSzem\u201d provided the information.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>3. Lawsuit on the Repeal of the Decision by the Akimat of Almaty City on the Allocation of the Land Plot<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>in the Water Protection Strip of the Yesentai River, which is under Private Construction<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>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 Bostandyksk\u0443 District of Almaty City, and then on February 1 in the Medeu District Court of Almaty City.<\/p>\n<p><em>The lawsuit demands:<\/em><\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>2. To recognize as illegal the State Act on the Right to Private Property on the land provided to \u201cAlmatygorNPTSzem\u201d, and repeal it.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>4. To issue a court ruling on the violations of the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan by state bodies.<\/p>\n<p>On January 14, the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court refused to admit the lawsuit in connection with the court\u2019s lack of jurisdiction.<br \/>\nOn January 17, the lawsuit was filed with Court No. 1 of the Bostandyksk\u0443 District of Almaty City.<br \/>\nOn January 24, Court No. 1 of the Bostandyksk\u0443 District refused to admit the lawsuit in connection with the court\u2019s lack of jurisdiction.<br \/>\nOn February 1, the lawsuit was filed in the Medeu District Court of Almaty City.<br \/>\nOn April 22, the Medeu District Court refused to satisfy the lawsuit.<br \/>\nOn May 5, the Board of Appeals for Civic Affairs of the Almaty City Court rejected the appellate complaint.<br \/>\nOn July 8, a complaint for review was filed in the Review Board on Civic Affairs of the Almaty City Court.<br \/>\nOn July 16, the Review Board on Civic Affairs of the Almaty City Court refused to consider the complaint for review.<br \/>\nOn July 31, a complaint for review was filed with the Supreme Court\u2019s Review Board on Civic Affairs.<br \/>\nOn September 25, the Supreme Court\u2019s Review Board on Civic Affairs refused to renew the complaint.<\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *\u00a0<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>4. Lawsuit against the Administrator of the Courts of Almaty City <\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>for Failing to Implement the Decision of the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Almaty City<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>regarding the Liquidation of the Unsanctioned Dumping Ground <\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>for Construction and Household Waste by the \u201cChimbulak\u201d Mountain Ski Resort.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit was filed on May 19, 2008, in the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (SIEC) of Almaty City.<\/p>\n<p><em>The lawsuit demands:<\/em><\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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 \u201cOn Executive Legal Proceedings\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>On May 23, the SIEC refused to admit the lawsuit in connection with the court\u2019s lack of jurisdiction.<br \/>\nOn June 9, the lawsuit was filed in Court No. 1 of the Bostandyksky District of Almaty City.<br \/>\nOn June 11, Court No. 1 of the Bostandyksky District refused to admit the lawsuit in connection with the court\u2019s lack of jurisdiction.<br \/>\nOn June 20, a private complaint was filed in the Almaty City Court.<br \/>\nOn July 23, the Board on Civic Affairs of the Almaty City Court determined the jurisdiction.<br \/>\nOn August 26, the lawsuit was filed for a second time in the SIEC.<br \/>\nOn October 2, the SIEC began to review the lawsuit.<br \/>\nOn October 21, the SIEC of Almaty City made a decision on the satisfaction of the complaint. The decision entered into legal force.<\/p>\n<p><strong>For more detailed information, please see\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>5. Lawsuit on the Government of Kazakhstan\u2019s Failure to Act, <\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>which has Led to the Violation of the Rights and Legal Interests of Citizens,<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>and on Acknowledging as Invalid the Conclusion of the Senior Sanitary Doctor <\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>regarding the Reduction of the Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>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 \u201cShanyrak\u201d.<\/p>\n<p><em>The lawsuit demands:<\/em><\/p>\n<p>1. To recognize that the Government\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<p>2. To recognize the Government\u2019s failure to control the activities of the Ministries and other central and local executive bodies in regards to implementing laws and international agreements.<\/p>\n<p>3. To recognize the Government\u2019s 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 \u201cOn Environmental Assessment\u201d (Articles 13, 14, 15.1, 16 and 36) when deciding to reduce the SPZ.<\/p>\n<p>4. To recognize as invalid the conclusion of the Senior State Sanitary Doctor (#07-2, January 16, 2004) in the Addendum to the Draft \u201cThe Sanitary Protection Zone of the Karachaganak Oil and Gas Condensate Field\u201d from December 25, 2003.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>7. To recover the trial expenses from the defendant.<\/p>\n<p>On June 23, the SIEC refused to accept the lawsuit in connection with the court\u2019s lack of jurisdiction.<br \/>\nOn July 7, the lawsuit was filed in the Almaty District Court of Astana City.<br \/>\nOn 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.<br \/>\nOn July 31, an addendum to the lawsuit was sent to the Almaty District Court of Astana City.<br \/>\nOn August 5, the Almaty District Court of Astana City refused to accept the lawsuit.<br \/>\nOn September 29, a complaint was filed to the Astana City Court\u2019s Board on Civic Affairs.<br \/>\n<strong>On December 11, the Astana City Court\u2019s 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *\u00a0<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>6. Lawsuit on the Refusal of the Statistics Department of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>to Provide Environmental Information<\/strong>**.<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit was submitted on October 9, 2008, in the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast (SIEC EKO).<\/p>\n<p><em>The lawsuit demands:<\/em><\/p>\n<p>1. To recognize the lawsuit as substantiated.<\/p>\n<p>2. To recognize as illegal the defendant\u2019s categorization of the requested information as information with limited access.<\/p>\n<p>3. To require the defendant to provide the requested information.<\/p>\n<p>4. To recover the trial expenses from the defendant.<\/p>\n<p>On October 20, the court began to review the lawsuit.<br \/>\nOn November 27, the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast issued a decision on the satisfaction of the complaint.<br \/>\nOn December 11, the Statistics Department of Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast submitted a complaint to the Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast Court\u2019s Board on Civic Affairs.<\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *\u00a0<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>7. Lawsuit on Banning All Types of Economic Activity in the Water Protection Strip <\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>of the Yesentai River (Almaty City),<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>and Releasing the Land Plot from Construction Soil<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p><em>The lawsuit demands:<\/em><\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>2. To prohibit the property owner of the land plot from undertaking construction or any other economic activity in the water protection strip.<\/p>\n<p>On November 7, the court began to review the lawsuit.<br \/>\nOn December 18, the Medeu District Court of Almaty City refused to satisfy the lawsuit requirements.<\/p>\n<p><strong>* * *\u00a0<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>8. Lawsuit to Recognize as Invalid the Conclusions of the State Environmental Assessment,<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>and to Suspend the Activities of \u201cTsentrbeton Ltd.\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p><em>The lawsuit demands:<\/em><\/p>\n<p>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 \u201cBalkhash-Alakolsky Ecology Department of the Committee for Ecological Regulation and Control\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>2. To require the Akimat of the city of Almaty to suspend the economic activities of \u201cTsentrbeton Ltd.\u201d until it is brought into full compliance with the requirements of the Republic of Kazakhstan\u2019s Ecological Code.<\/p>\n<p>On November 7, the court began to review the lawsuit.<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit review was postponed until early 2009.<\/p>\n<p><strong>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>Lawyer Svetlana Philippovna Katorcha defends the rights and legal interests of the Ecological Society Green Salvation in court.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>* 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>** 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.<\/strong><br \/>\n<em><strong>Translated by Michelle Kinman.<\/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>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&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7671,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[948,143],"tags":[433],"class_list":["post-8292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal_proceedings","category-news","tag-legal-proceedings"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8292","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=8292"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8292\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17220,"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8292\/revisions\/17220"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/7671"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esgrs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}