NAME OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

SOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

of September 24, 1998

According to the petition of Altyn-Suu joint-stock company for recognition unconstitutional and inappropriate to item 4 of Article 4, to Item 2 of Article 7, to Item 3 of Article 15, to Items 3 and 4 of Article 79, to Item 3 of Article 84, to Item 1 of Article 87 and Item 2 of article 88 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic of Item 3 of Article 122 of the Arbitral Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic in the part specifying entry into force immediately the judgments on disputes on recognition invalid the acts of state bodies and law-enforcement practice which do not have normative nature the Osh region established by the decision of Arbitration Court of October 6, 1997 and the resolution of judicial structure of supervising instance of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of February 6, 1998 on case on the claim of Altyn-Suu joint-stock company to the State tax authorities on the Osh region about recognition invalid orders of the State tax authorities on the Osh region of May 28, 1997 No. No. 543 and 544

Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic in structure: Chairman Bayekova Ch. T., vice-chairman Sutalinov A. A., P.N., Kenensariyev A. S. sudeydryzhaka., Osmonova K. E., Satybekova S. S., Togoybayev Zh. Zh., Esenaliyeva K. E. and Esenkanova K. E.,

Having heard the report of the judge of the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic Esenkanov N. E., speech of representatives: Altyn-Suu joint-stock company - Shakirzyanova M. D., the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic - Tyurina V. I., General Court of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic - Kachkynbayeva A. B and having researched case papers, the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic

ESTABLISHED:

In the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic on March 28 and on July 3, 1998 petitions of Altyn-Suu joint-stock company for recognition unconstitutional and inappropriate to item 4 of Article 4, to Item 2 of Article 7, to Item 3 of Article 15, to Items 3 and 4 of Article 79, to Item 3 of Article 84, to Item 1 of Article 87 and Item 2 of article 88 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic of Item 3 of Article 122 of the Arbitral Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic in the part specifying entry into force immediately the judgments on disputes on recognition invalid the acts of state bodies and law-enforcement practice which do not have normative nature arrived the Osh region established by the decision of Arbitration Court of October 6, 1997 and the resolution of judicial structure of supervising instance of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of February 6, 1998 on case on the claim of Altyn-Suu joint-stock company to the State tax authorities on the Osh region about recognition invalid orders of the State tax authorities on the Osh region of May 28, 1997 No. No. 543 and 544.

The Altyn-Suu joint-stock company brings the following into reasons for the requirements arguments. The decision of October 6, 1997 the Arbitration Court of the Osh region satisfied the claim of Altyn-Suu joint-stock company for recognition invalid orders of the State tax authorities on the Osh region of May 28, 1997 with No. No. 543 and 544 about collection from Altyn-Suu joint-stock company 9715062 som. From February, 1998 the specified decision of Arbitration Court of the Osh region is cancelled by the resolution of judicial structure of supervising instance of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, and the claim of Altyn-Suu joint-stock company is left without satisfaction. The Arbitration Court of the Osh region passed this decision being guided by Item 3 of Article 122 of the Arbitral Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic according to which the judgments on disputes on recognition invalid and the acts of state bodies which do not have normative nature become effective immediately. The parties are deprived by it the right of submission of the claim in appellate instance. The judicial structure of supervising instance of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic considers case only on the materials which are available in it without consideration of new requirements and proofs. The rights of Altyn-Suu joint-stock company to protection at any stage of process of consideration of legal case, stipulated in Item 2 articles 88 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic and the principle of equality of all before the law and court set by Item 3 of article 15 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic are as a result infringed. This action the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic violated requirements of the Arbitral Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic that contradicts Item 3 and 4 of article 79 of the Constitution on subordination of the judge only to the Constitution and the law, Item 3 of article 15 of the Constitution on equality of all before the law, and also Item 2 of article 7 of the Constitution on the powers established by the Constitution of the republic, that is the Supreme Arbitration Court exceeded the authority, having accepted and having considered the writ of appeal on the decision which did not take legal effect. According to Article 134 of the Arbitral Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic the petition for appeal, and in case of impossibility of consideration of the petition for appeal in this court is submitted about the decision of Arbitration Court which did not take legal effect, it is submitted together with case of other court, but not to the Supreme Arbitration Court as the Supreme Arbitration Court exercises supervision of activities of Arbitration Courts of areas and the city of Bishkek. Thus, Item 3 of article 84 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic is violated.

In judicial session the representative of Altyn-Suu joint-stock company Shakirzyanov M. D., having 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, and to stop the constitutional legal proceedings.

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