NAME OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

SOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

of February 5, 1998

According to the petition of Antalya small enterprise for recognition to unconstitutional and inappropriate Articles 4, 15, 79, 84 and 88 Constitutions of the Kyrgyz Republic of law-enforcement practice of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic established by the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of August 14, 1996 and the resolution of cassation instance of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of October 9, 1996 in the claim of Nour-Aman limited liability company to Antalya small enterprise about collection of the amounts: 523385 som of principal debt, 566271 som of penalty fee and 39343 som of the state fee

Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic as a part of the Chairman Bayekova Ch. T., vice-chairman Sutalinov A. L., judges: Dryzhaka P. N., Kenensariyeva Ampere-second., Osmonova K. E., Satybekova S. S., Togoybayev Zh. Zh., Esenaliyeva K. E. and Esenkanova K. E.,

with participation of the court session secretary Kasymaliyev A. N.,

Having heard the report of the judge Esenaliyev K. E., speeches of the director of Antalya small enterprise Makhmudov K. B., his representative Enikeev I. A., representative of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic Tyurin V. I. and having researched case papers, the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic

established:

The Antalya small enterprise brings the following arguments into reasons for the requirements. Case on the first instance is considered by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic without participation of the representative of Antalya small enterprise and the violations of constitutional rights of small enterprise fixed by Item 1 of Article 4, Item 3 of Article 15 and Item 2 of article 88 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic which guarantee variety of patterns of ownership, their equal legal protection, equality of all before the law and court and not violated right of person to protection at any stage of process of consideration of legal case are allowed. The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, having considered the above-stated dispute over the first instance and having reviewed own decision, violated requirements of Item 3 of article 84 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic providing that the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic exercises supervision only of judicial activities of Arbitration Courts of areas and the city of Bishkek.

In judicial session director of Antalya small enterprise Makhmudov K. B., his representative Enikeev I. A., having completely supported the petition, asked it to satisfy. Representative of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic Tyurin V. I., without having agreed with the petition, asked to leave it without satisfaction.

Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic, having discussed arguments of the parties and having researched case papers, considers the petition subject to satisfaction on the following bases.

Apparently from the provided materials, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic accepted to the production on the first instance and satisfied with the decision of August 14, 1996 the claim of Nour-Aman limited liability company to Antalya small enterprise about collection of the amounts: 523385 som of principal debt, 566271 som of penalty fee and 39343 som of the state fee. On this judgment from Antalya small enterprise on September 11, 1996 in the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic the petition for appeal which is accepted by determination of October 20, 1996 to production by the judge of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic by Luchkovy G. A arrived.

The cassation instance of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic the resolution of October 9, 1996 left the decision of August 14, 1996 without change, and the claim of Antalya small enterprise - without satisfaction.

The statement of Antalya small enterprise of October 30, 1996 about review of the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of August 14, 1996 on newly discovered facts is left without satisfaction with determination of cassation instance of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 10, 1996.

From case on the claim of the Nour-Aman limited liability company to Antalya small enterprise about collection of the amount of 1467170 som requested from the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic it is visible that the defendant, Antalya small enterprise, on August 14, 1996 of the claim declared to it is in accordance with the established procedure not informed on consideration of the Kyrgyz Republic by the Supreme Arbitration Court.

By the judge in the made decision it is specified that the defendant did not provide response and the materials requested by Arbitration Court important for the dispute resolution.

The absence reason of the representative of Antalya small enterprise in day of consideration of the claim cannot be established, in type of lack of the protocol of judicial session. In this connection, the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic considers reasonable arguments of the petition of Antalya small enterprise that its constitutional rights guaranteed by Item 3 of Article 15 and Item 2 of article 88 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic on equality of all before the law and court and not violated right of person to protection at any stage of consideration of legal case are violated.

Under the specified circumstances the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic considers that the law-enforcement practice established by the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of August 4, 1996 and the resolution of cassation instance of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of October 9, 1996 in the claim of Nour-Aman limited liability company to Antalya small enterprise about collection of the amount of 1460170 som is Article unconstitutional and inappropriate to Item 2 7, to item 4 of Article 79 and Item 3 of article 84 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic.

solved:

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info