CC BY
33УДК 343.1:347.9
QUESTIONS OF THE REASONABLENESS TIME IN CRIMINAL
AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
Kaliakperova Elena Nikolaevna
Professor of the Department of Jurisprudence of the S. Amanzholov East Kazakhstan University, Doctor of jurisprudence, professor; Ust-Kamenogorsk, Republic of Kazakhstan; e-mail: Elenamanina@mail.ru
Abstract. The article considers a set of issues regulating reasonable time in both criminal and civil proceedings of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Thus, in the Concept of Legal Policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the period from 2010 to 2020, it is noted that an effective criminal policy of the state is impossible without an optimal model of criminal proceedings, since it is by the state of criminal procedure legislation that one can judge the structure of the state and the form of its government, the position of an individual in the state and society. The form of implementation of these provisions was the adoption and entry into force of the new Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on January 1, 2015.
The novelty of this law was the introduction of a new evaluation concept of «reasonable time» in relation to pre-trial investigation (Part 1 of Article 192 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and the main trial (part 5 of Article 322 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). In this regard, the question arises how the provision on the «reasonableness time» will affect the criminal justice system and whether it applies to the entire institution of procedural terms.
The reasonableness of the time limits in criminal proceedings applies only to certain stages of the criminal process, directly specified by the legislator, and does not cover the entire legal proceedings as a whole. Civil proceedings do not contain a definition of a reasonable period, but q in some cases they set the limits of this period, which depend on the legal relations that arise.
In civil legislation, the basic rules on the deadline for the parties to achieve the result of the obligation arefixed in article 277 of the Civil Code. It begins with the legalformula «if the obligation provides» (the deadline for execution). The term «obligation» in this case should be understood as a synonym for another legal formulation - «terms of the obligation» - indicating in a broad sense all the legal sources of proper behavior of the parties discussed above - legislative acts, K provisions of contracts and unilateral transactions, business practices, other commonly imposed requirements (legal principles, commercial practices, the essence of the legal relationship).
Keywords: criminal proceedings, civil proceedings, procedural terms, reasonable terms, pre-trial proceedings, enforcement proceedings, pre-trial investigation.
ВОПРОСЫ РАЗУМНОСТИ СРОКОВ В УГОЛОВНОМ И ГРАЖДАНСКОМ СУДОПРОИЗВОДСТВЕ
X
> го
о
го
о
Калиакперова Елена Николаевна ф
Профессор кафедры юриспруденции Восточно-Казахстанского университета М
имени С. Аманжолова, доктор юридических наук, доцент; г.Усть-Каменогорск, Ц
Республика Казахстан; e-mail: Elenamanina@mail.ru И
Аннотация. В статье рассматривается комплекс вопросов, регулирующих разумные срок как в уголовном, так и в гражданском судопроизводстве Республики Казахстан.
Так, в Концепции правовой политики Республики Казахстан, действовавшей с 2010 до 2020 года, было отмечено, что эффективная уголовная политика государства невозмож- 0 на без оптимальной модели уголовного судопроизводства, поскольку именно по состоянию
уголовно-процессуального законодательства можно судить об устройстве государства и форме его правления, о положении личности в государстве и обществе. Формой реализации указанных положений явилось принятие и вступление в законную силу с 1 января 2015 года нового уголовно-процессуального кодекса Республики Казахстан.
Новеллой указанного закона стало введение нового оценочного понятия «разумный срок» применительно к досудебному расследованию (часть первая статьи 192 УПК РК) и главному судебному разбирательству (часть пятая статьи 322 УПК РК). В этой связи возникает вопрос, каким образом положение о «разумности срока» отразится на системе уголовного судопроизводства и распространяется ли оно на весь институт процессуальных сроков.
Разумность сроков в уголовном судопроизводстве распространяется только на отдельные, прямо указанные законодателем, стадии уголовного процесса и не охватывают все судопроизводство в целом. Гражданское судопроизводство не содержит определения разумного срока, однако в некоторых случаях устанавливает пределы данного срока, которые зависят от возникающих правоотношений.
В гражданском законодательстве базовые правила о сроке достижения сторонами результата обязательства закреплены в статье 277 Гражданского кодекса. Она начинается юридической формулой «если обязательство предусматривает» (срок исполнения). Термин «обязательство» в данном случае надлежит понимать как синоним другой легальной формулировки - «условия обязательства», - указывающей в широком значении на все рассмотренные выше юридические источники надлежащего поведения сторон - акты законодательства, положения договоров и односторонних сделок, обычаи делового оборота, иные обычно предъявляемые требования (правовые принципы, коммерческие обыкновения, существо правоотношения).
Ключевые слова: уголовное судопроизводство, гражданское судопроизводство, процессуальные сроки, разумные сроки, досудебное производство, исполнительное производство, досудебное расследование.
CL
КЫЛМЫСТЫК ЖЭНЕ АЗАМАТТЬЩ СОТ 1С1Н ЖУРГ1ЗУДЕГ1 МЕРЗ1МДЕРДЩ ПАРАСАТТЫЛЫГЫ МЭСЕЛЕЛЕР!
1 Елена Николаевна Калиакперова
< С. Аманжолов атындагы Шыгыс Казацстан университет1 Зацтану
0 кафедрасыныц профессоры, зац гылымдарыныц докторы, доцент;
1 Оскемен цаласы, Казахстан Республикасы; e-mail: Elenamanina@mail.ru
о
СО
О
< Аннотация. Мацалада Казацстан Республикасыныц Кылмыстыц жэне азаматтыц ^Е сот шн ЖYргiзудегi ацылга цонымды мерзiмдердi реттейтт мэселелер кешет царасты-
< рылады.
Ь Мэселен, Казацстан Республикасыныц 2010 жылдан 2020 жылга дейiнгi кезецге ар-налган цуцыцтыц саясат тужырымдамасында цылмыстыц сот шн ЖYргiзудiц оцтайлы моделiнсiз мемлекеттщ тиiмдi цылмыстыц саясаты мYмкiн емес екендiгi атап втiлдi, вй-ткет нац Кылмыстыц-процестiк зацнаманыц жай-^ш бойынша мемлекеттщ цурылымы мен оны басцару нысаны, мемлекеттегi жэне цогамдагы жеке адамныц жагдайы тура-лы айтуга болады. Кврсетыген ережелердi юке асыру нысаны 2015 жылгы 1 цацтардан бастап Казацстан Республикасыныц жаца Кылмыстыц-процестт кодекстщ цабылдануы ^ жэне зацды кYшiне енуi болып табылады.
^ Аталган зацныц новелласы сотца дейiнгi тергеп-тексеруге (КР ЩЖК 192-бабыныц ^ 1-бвлт) жэне бас сот талцылауына (КР ЩЖК 322-бабыныц 5-бвлт) цатысты «ацылга ^ цонымдымерзiм» деген жаца багалау угымын енгiзу болды. Осыган байланысты «мерзiмнiц т негiздiлiгi» туралы ереже цылмыстыц сот шн ЖYргiзу ЖYйесiне цалай эсер етедi жэне ол ю ЖYргiзу мерзiмдерiнiц бYкiл институтына цолданылады ма деген сурац туындайды.
Кылмыстыц сот шн журггзудегг мерзгмдердгц ацылга цонымдылыгы зац шыгарушы тгкелей кврсеткен цылмыстыц процестщ жекелеген сатыларына гана цолданылады жэне тутастай алганда барлыц сот шн жург1зуд1 цамтымайды. Азаматтыц сот шн жург1зу-де ацылга цонымды мерзгмтц анъщтамасы жоц, алайда кейбгр жагдайларда туындайтын цуцыцтыц цатынастарга байланысты осы мерзгмтц шектерт белгглейдг.
Азаматтыц зацнамада тараптардыц мтдеттеме нэтижес1не цол жетюзу мерз1м1 туралы нег1зг1 ережелер Азаматтыц Кодекстщ 277-бабында беютыген. Ол «егер мтдеттеме царастырылса» (орындау мерз1м1) цуцыцтыц формуласынан басталады. Бул жагдайда «мтдеттеме» термит басца зацды тужырымныц синонимг реттде тYсiнiлуi керек - «мтдеттеме шарттары» - Тараптардыц тиiстi мiнез - цулцыныц жогарыда ца-растырылган барлыц зацды квздерт-зац актыерт, шарттар мен бiржацты мэмыелердщ ережелерт, wкерлт айналымныц эдет-гурыптарын, басца да талаптарды (цуцыцтыц принциптер, коммерциялыц эдет-гурыптар, цуцыцтыц цатынастардыц мэш) кец магы-нада кврсетедi.
Тушнд1 сездер: цылмыстыц сот шн жyргiзу, азаматтыц сот шн жyргiзу, процестт мерзiмдер, ацылга цонымды мерзiмдер, сотца дейiнгi w жyргiзу, атцарушылыц w жyргiзу, сотца дейiнгi тергеп-тексеру.
DOI: 10.52026/2788-5291 2021 67 4 71
Introduction. 2014 was marked by the adoption of not only the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter - CC RK), but also the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter - CPC), the Penal Enforcement Code, the Code of Administrative Offenses, the development and discussion of the draft Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter - the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan) (adopted on October 31, 2015), the draft Labor Code (adopted on November 23, 2015).
That is, the legislator has done a lot of work on the preparation, consideration and adoption of a large volume of initiatives in this or that area of legislation.
One of the novelties of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan was the introduction of a new evaluative concept of «reasonable time» in relation to pre-trial investigation (part one of Article 192 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and the main trial (part five of Article 322 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan) [1; pp. 97, 152].
For reference: It should be noted that in the previously valid CPC dated December 13, 1997, this term was not used.
Soviet jurist, doctor of law, professor M.S. Strogovich wrote that «compliance with procedural deadlines determines the achievement of the legal effect of an action» [2, p. 201].
Akhpanov A.N. and Kaziev Z.G., by analogy with the Russian and Ukrainian codes, proposed to introduce a reasonable time in the CPC as an independent principle of all criminal proceedings, reliably guaranteeing the realization of the rights and obligations of all participants in the criminal process and timely
access to justice [3, p. 71].
The essence of these terms is to limit the time within which it is allowed to perform appropriate procedural actions that ensure the speed of the criminal process.
Methods. The article uses formal-logical and dialectical, qualitative and special methods of scientific research, comparative legal, empirical analysis.
Results and discussion. The first part of Article 192 CPC states that the pre-trial investi- q gation must be completed within a reasonable g time, taking into account the complexity of the * criminal case, the scope of investigative actions c and the sufficiency of the investigation of the T circumstances of the case, but not more than the A statute of limitations of criminal prosecution [1, A p. 145]. When determining a reasonable period ° of criminal proceedings, such circumstances as o the legal and factual complexity of the crimi- q nal case, the exercise of procedural rights by ^ participants in pre-trial proceedings, the way in q which the person conducting the pre-trial inves- > tigation exercises his powers for the timely im- ^ plementation of pre-trial proceedings are taken > into account. Similar requirements on the need > to complete the main trial within a reasonable > time are contained in the fifth part of Article H 322 of the CPC [1, p. 211]. g
Reasonable time in the CPC are due to the 1
j>
following components:
A) taking into account the complexity of the g criminal case; №
B) the scope of investigative actions; >
C) sufficiency of investigation of the circum- 77 stances of the case; 2
. o
D) a reasonable period should not exceed the 1 statute of limitations of criminal prosecution.
When determining reasonable time limits in criminal proceedings, such circumstances as: the legal and factual complexity of the criminal case, the exercise of procedural rights by participants in pre-trial proceedings, the way in which the person conducting the pre-trial investigation exercises his powers for the timely implementation of pre-trial proceedings are taken into account.
The analysis of the above provisions leads to the conclusion that the reasonableness of the time limits applies only to certain stages of the criminal process, directly indicated by the legislator, and does not cover the entire legal proceedings as a whole. Article 7 or Chapter 6 of the CPC does not contain the concept of «reasonable time», respectively, it is not generally binding, extending only to the stage of pre-trial investigation in the form of preliminary investigation, inquiry and the stage of the main trial.
In addition, the term «reasonable time» is used in art. 203; 322; 341; 348; 615; 628 CPC without setting its limits.
At the same time, the establishment of a «reasonable time» is not applicable to the accelerated pre-trial investigation (Article 190 of the CPC), as well as to the protocol form (Article 191 of the CPC), conducted in a reduced mode, within the time limits clearly established 3 by law, violation of which entails refusal to 8 conduct them. It is also inapplicable to non-pro-k longed periods of investigation, for example, to ^r the period of detention of a suspect.
In accordance with the provisions of Article * 192 of the CРC, the term of pre-trial investi-i gation is calculated from the moment of reg-f istration of the application and message in the o Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations un-| til the day of sending the criminal case to the >s prosecutor with an indictment or a decision to g transfer the case to the court for consideration
< of the use of compulsory medical measures or c until the day of the decision to terminate the
< proceedings [1, c. 146].
k At the same time, the pre-trial investigation £ in cases of inquiry should not exceed one ti month and two months in cases of preliminary o investigation. The specified times of the pre-
0 trial investigation may be extended at the m reasoned request of the investigator, the head of
1 the body of inquiry due to:
1) the complexity of the case by the district k and equivalent prosecutor - for a reasonable ^ time, but not more than up to three months; ^ 2) the special complexity of the case or tj when deciding whether to send the materials 00 of the criminal case to a foreign state for the
continuation of criminal prosecution - by the prosecutor of the region and the equivalent prosecutor and their deputies for a reasonable time, but not more than up to twelve months.
Further extension of the time of pre-trial investigation is allowed only in exceptional cases and may be carried out by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan, his deputies for a reasonable period, but not more than the statute of limitations of criminal prosecution.
We agree with Yurchenko R.N. that even in the most ordinary case, which is not particularly complicated, the legislator provides for the commission of procedural actions by criminal prosecution bodies and the court for such a long period of time [4, p. 67].
Thus, the limits of the «reasonable time» of the investigation, as well as under the previous legislation, are clearly limited by law and are established by the prosecutor of the appropriate level.
The extension of the investigation period applies only to the preliminary investigation, as the main form of pre-trial investigation. This is evidenced by the fact that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 189 of the CPC, in cases where it is impossible to ensure the sufficiency and completeness of the investigation of the circumstances of the case within the time limits established by law, by the decision of the head of the body of inquiry, the protocol form goes into the mode of inquiry, and the inquiry into the mode of preliminary investigation. Further extension of the pre-trial investigation time is carried out on the general grounds specified earlier.
In accordance with the provisions of part seven of Article 192 of the CPC, when the prosecutor returns the case for additional investigation, the pre-trial investigation is carried out within the time period established by the prosecutor, but not more than one month from the date of receipt of the case to the person conducting criminal prosecution. And in part eight of this article, it is indicated that the suspect, the victim has the right to appeal against the unjustified delay in the investigation and file a petition to the prosecutor to establish a certain period during which the person conducting the criminal prosecution must complete the investigation of the case in full or appeal to the court in accordance with the procedure provided by law. In the latter case, the reasonableness of the term is determined by the investigating judge.
As in criminal law, the term «reasonable
time» is used in civil proceedings, but does not disclose its specific content.
Meanwhile, in some cases, some regulatory legal acts set its limits.
Thus, the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter - Civil Code) provides that in cases where an obligation does not provide for a period of its fulfillment and does not contain conditions that allow determining this period, it must be fulfilled within a reasonable time after the occurrence of the obligation. At the same time, the obligation not fulfilled within a reasonable time, as well as the obligation, the term of which is determined by the moment of demand, the debtor is obliged to fulfill within seven days from the date of the creditor's claim for its fulfillment (Article 277 of the Civil Code)1.
In addition, paragraph 2 of Article 217 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 17, 2002 «On Merchant Shipping» states that if the consent of the pledgees is not received, the vessel or the ownership of the vessel under construction is excluded from the relevant registers after a reasonable period, but not less than three months after the notification of the pledgees2.
It should be noted here that a number of international acts ratified by the Republic of Kazakhstan also contain a reference to reasonable deadlines that establish certain time frames.
1) According to article 20 of the Convention «On Labor Inspection in Industry and Trade», adopted in Geneva by the 30th session of the General Conference of the International Labor Organization on July 11, 1947 and ratified by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 7, 20013, the central inspection body publishes annual general reports on the activities of inspection services under its control. These reports are published within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding twelve months after the expiration of the year to which they relate.
2) In Article 12 of the Agreement on the Appeal to the Court of the Eurasian Economic Community of Economic Entities on Disputes within the Customs Union and the Specifics of Legal Proceedings on Them dated December 9, 2010, ratified by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 30, 20114, the Commission of the Customs Union is obliged, within a reasonable time, but not exceeding 60 calendar days from the date of entry into force of the Court decision, to execute the effective Court decision, in which the Court found that by act or action (inaction) The Customs Union Commission violated the rights and legitimate interests of economic entities, stipulated by international agreements concluded within the framework of the Customs Union.
3) According to paragraph 17 of article 9 (Dispute resolution) The Agreement «On Uniform Rules for State Support of Agriculture» dated December 9, 2010, ratified by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 22, 20115, if the Conciliation Commission concludes that the Party against whom the complaint was filed has not fulfilled its obligations under this Agreement, in its decision it indicates the need for the Respondent Party to take measures to eliminate these violations, and a reasonable period, which may not exceed 1 calendar year, to implement its decisions.
4) In accordance with paragraph 111 of the Statute of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, the decision of the Eurasian Economic Commission or its individual provisions, recognized by the Court as inconsistent with the Treaty and (or) international treaties within the Union, within a reasonable time, but not exceeding 60 calendar days from the date of entry into force of the Court's decision, is brought by the Commission in accordance with the Treaty and (or) international treaties within the Union, unless another period is specified in the Court's decision6.
X
Ы А
о x о Д А
сг
В
СП А
1 Гражданский кодекс Республики Казахстан. Информационно-правовая система нормативных правовых актов Республики Казахстан http://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K940001000_#z582
2 Закон Республики Казахстан от 17 января 2002 года № 284 «О торговом мореплавании». Информационно-правовая система нормативных правовых актов Республики Казахстанhttp://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z020000284_#z450
3 Закон Республики Казахстан от 7 мая 2001 года N194 «О ратификации Конвенции об инспекции труда в промышленности и торговле». Информационно-правовая система нормативных правовых актов Республики Казахстанhttp://adilet. zan.kz/rus/docs/Z010000194_
4 Закон Республики Казахстан от 30 июня 2011 года № 449-IV «О ратификации Договора об обращении в Суд Евразийского экономического сообщества хозяйствующих субъектов по спорам в рамках Таможенного союза и особенностях судопроизводства по ним». Информационно-правовая система нормативных правовых актов Республики Казахста-на:http://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z1100000449
5 Закон Республики Казахстан от 22 июля 2011 года № 474-1У «О ратификации Соглашения о единых правилах государственной поддержки сельского хозяйства». Информационно-правовая система нормативных правовых актов Республики Казахстанhttp://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z1100000474
6 Закон Республики Казахстан от 24 марта 2011 года № 418-IV «О ратификации Статута Суда Евразийского экономического сообщества». Информационно-правовая система нормативных правовых актов Республики Казахстанhttp:// adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z1100000418
А го О го О
X
е о
"U
2 А
JZ
"и
NJ
о
IN
о
IN
CL
< z
CL
о в X
о
in
о
СП <
< СП
ь
-О
с;
ш £
Ч О X
о <
СП
X
ь
According to paragraph 113 of the above Statute, the Commission is obliged, within a reasonable time, but not exceeding 60 calendar days from the date of entry into force of the Court's decision, unless another period is specified in the Court's decision, to execute the Court's decision that has entered into force, in which the Court found that the disputed action (inaction) The Commission does not comply with the Treaty and (or) international treaties within the Union and that such action (inaction) The Commission violated the rights and legitimate interests of economic entities stipulated by the Agreement and (or) international treaties within the Union.
5) Paragraph 64 of Chapter 9 «Internal regulation of trade in services with respect to the establishment and (or) activities» of the Protocol on Trade in Services, Establishment, Activity and Investment states that if a Member State applies licensing requirements and procedures with respect to trade in services, establishment and (or) activities, such a Member State ensures that the competent authorities decide to grant or refuse to issue a permit within a reasonable time specified in the legislation of the Member State, as a rule, no later than 30 working days from the date of receipt (receipt) of the application for a permit, which is considered to be executed in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the member state. Such a period is determined based on the minimum time required to receive and process all documents and (or) information necessary for the implementation of the permitting proce-dure7.
Thus, the current law of the Republic of Kazakhstan does not contain a definition of a reasonable period, but in some cases sets the limits of this period, which depend on the legal relations that arise.
At the same time, the determination of reasonable time limits is left to the discretion of the authorized bodies, which negatively affects the implementation of constitutional rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities.
In this regard, in order to exclude the breadth of discretionary powers, we consider it expedient to determine at the legislative level the
minimum and maximum limits of reasonable terms in the relevant areas of public relations (civil, family, labor, housing, administrative, financial, economic, land relations, relations on the use of natural resources and environmental protection and other legal relations).
Procedural times and times of enforcement proceedings are regulated by the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the CPC, the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 2, 2010 «On Enforcement proceedings and the status of bailiffs».
Thus, Article 121 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes that procedural actions are performed within the time limits established by law. If the time for the performance of a procedural action is not established by law, it is appointed by the court. The procedural time appointed by the court must be reasonable and sufficient for the performance of the procedural action.
According to Article 126 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the terms appointed by the court may be extended by the court8. The deadlines established by law may be restored by the court if they are missed for reasons recognized by the court as valid. The deadline for filing an appeal may be restored by the court, provided that the application for restoration of the deadline is filed no later than three months from the date of the decision.
The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan «On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Bailiffs» stipulates that enforcement of enforcement documents by bailiffs must be completed no more than two months from the date of initiation of enforcement proceedings, with the exception of enforcement documents on periodic penalties, as well as except in cases where legislative acts set other deadlines for execution (Article 39). At the same time, the issue of postponement or installment of execution is decided by the court at the request of the parties to the enforcement proceedings (article 40)9.
Thus, the civil procedural legislation does not provide for the limits of the extension of procedural terms and deadlines for the execution of court decisions, leaving it at the discretion of the court, except for the period of preparation of the case for trial, which can be
7 Приложение N 16 к Договору о Евразийском экономическом союзе «Протокол о торговле услугами, учреждении, деятельности и осуществлении инвестиций». Информационно-правовая система нормативных правовых актов Республики Казахстанhttp://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/finpol/dobd/regtorg/Documents/
8 Гражданский процессуальный кодекс Республики Казахстан. Информационно-правовая система нормативных правовых актов Республики Казахстанhttp://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1500000377
9 Закон Республики Казахстан от 2 апреля 2010 года № 261-1У «Об исполнительном производстве и статусе судебных исполнителей». Информационно-правовая система нормативных правовых актов Республики Казахстанhttp://adilet.zan. kz/rus/docs/Z100000261
extended up to one month by reasoned determination of the judge (Article 164 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan).
Also, the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides for the recovery of damages for the loss of time from the side that has unfairly filed a deliberately unfounded claim or systematically opposed the correct and prompt consideration and resolution of the case. The amount of compensation is determined by the court, taking into account specific circumstances, based on the current norms of remuneration for the relevant work in this area, in accordance with the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 25, 2006 «On the application by the courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan of legislation on court costs in civil cases» (Article 109 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan).
Meanwhile, the procedural terms and the terms of the enforcement proceedings may be unreasonably violated by the court and other authorized bodies, which may lead to losses for individuals and legal entities (an increase in penalties for late repayment of the loan, non-participation in the tender due to the arrest of bank accounts, etc.).
In turn, according to paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Civil Code, losses mean expenses that are incurred or should be incurred by a person whose right has been violated, loss or damage to his property (real damage), as well as lost income that this person would have received under normal turnover conditions if his right had not been violated (lost profit)10.
Conclusion. Summing up, we consider it expedient to consider the possibility of regulating the issue of compensation for violation of the times of judicial and enforcement proceedings and legislatively regulate:
- the concept of a reasonable time;
- the right of individuals and legal entities to compensation for violation of the times
of judicial and enforcement proceedings. At the same time, it is necessary to provide that compensation is awarded if such a violation occurred for reasons beyond the control of the person who applied for compensation, with the exception of extraordinary and unavoidable circumstances under these conditions (force majeure);
- the possibility of awarding compensation only if there is a fault of the court, criminal prosecution bodies, bodies charged with the duties of executing judicial acts, other state bodies, local self-government bodies and their officials;
- deprivation of the interested person of the right to compensation for moral damage for violation of the times of legal proceedings and execution of enforcement documents when awarding compensation;
- the form and amount of compensation. In particular, it is necessary to provide for the development of a methodology for determining the amount of compensation;
- jurisdiction. It is advisable to submit an application to a higher court by way of appealing against the actions of the court and to the courts of first instance by way of appealing against the actions of bailiffs;
- the procedure for the consideration of applications for the award of compensation.
At the same time, we consider it inappropriate to adopt a separate law on compensation by analogy with the Russian Federation in order to preserve the integrity of the legal regulation of judicial and enforcement proceedings and to avoid duplication of the norms of current legislation in this area.
We propose to provide for the above provisions within the framework of the draft CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan in a new edition and/or a separate draft law of the act on amendments and additions to the current legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
X
Ы А
о x о Д А
сг
В
СП А
REFERENCES
1. Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Казахстан: Практическое пособие. - Ал-маты: «Издательство «Норма-К», 2021 - 373 с.
2. Строгович М.С. Курс советского уголовного процесса. Том 1. Основные положения науки советского уголовного процесса. М.: Издательство «Наука», 1968.- 468 с.
3. Ахпанов А.Н., Казиев З.Г. О некоторых ключевых аспектах использования понятия «разумных срок» в казахстанском уголовном процессе // «Вестник Института законодательства Республики Казахстан», №3 (48), 2017. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-nekotoryh-klyuchevyh-aspektah-ispolzovaniya-ponyatiya-razumnyy-srok-v-kazahstanskom-
А
СП
О
СП
О
X
е о
"U
2 А
JZ
"и
10 Гражданский кодекс Республики Казахстан. Информационно-правовая система нормативных правовых актов Республики Казахстан http://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K940001000_#z582
NJ
о
ugolovnom-protsesse/viewer
4. Юрченко Р.Н. Об упрощенном досудебном производстве по уголовным делам в Республике Казахстан // Сборник материалов круглого стола «Практические аспекты производства предварительного следствия и дознания в упрощенном порядке в Республике Казахстан», Астана, 22 декабря 2009 год. Дата обращения 24.09.2021г. https://lprc.kz/ wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Prakticheskie-aspekty-proizvodstva-predvaritelnogo-sledstviya-i-doznaniya-v-uproshhennom-poryadke-v-RK-Sbornik-materialov.pdf
REFERENCES
1. Ugolovno-prosessualnyi kodeks Respubliki Kazahstan: Prakticheskoe posobie. - Almaty: «izdatelstvo «Norma-K», 2021 - 373 s.
2. Strogovich M.S. Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo prosessa. Tom 1. Osnovnye polojeniя nauki sovetskogo ugolovnogo prosessa. M.: Izdatelstvo «Nauka», 1968.- 468 s.
3. Ahpanov A.N., Kaziev Z.G. O nekotoryh klchevyh aspektah ispolzovaniяponяtiя «razumnyh srok» v kazahstanskom ugolovnom prosesse // «Vestnik Instituta zakonodatelstva Respubliki Kazahstan», №3 (48), 2017. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-nekotoryh-klyuchevyh-aspektah-ispolzovaniya-ponyatiya-razumnyy-srok-v-kazahstanskom-ugolovnom-protsesse/viewer
4. Urchenko R.N. Ob uproennom dosudebnom proizvodstve po ugolovnym delam v Respublike Kazahstan // Sbornik materialov kruglogo stola «Prakticheskie aspekty proizvodstva predvaritelnogo sledstviя i doznaniя v uproennom pomdke v Respublike Kazahstan», Astana, 22 dekabгя 2009 god. Data obraeniя 24.09.2021g. https://lprc.kz/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ Prakticheskie-aspekty-proizvodstva-predvaritelnogo-sledstviya-i-doznaniya-v-uproshhennom-poryadke-v-RK-Sbornik-materialov.pdf
IN
0 IN
Ю
01
z
^
a.
1
I j
LU
I
0 <
en
1
s
ь
X
s s
X
ь
Ш
