NAME OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

SOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

of December 10, 1997

According to the petition of the Integrated peasant economy "May" Alamudunsky district about recognition of Article 79 unconstitutional and inappropriate to Item 3 and Item 3 of article 84 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic of the law-enforcement practice established by the resolution of Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of July 29, 1996 in the claim of OKH "May" to the State property fund of the Kyrgyz Republic about the property right to shop No. 10

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

Having heard the report of the judge Esenkanov K. E., speeches of the chairman of OKH "May" Dzhumashev Sh. K., representatives of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of Tyurin V. I. and Medetbekova Ch. A., having researched case papers, the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic,

ESTABLISHED:

In the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic the petition of OKH "May" for recognition of Article 79 unconstitutional and inappropriate to Item 3 and Item 3 of article 84 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic of the law-enforcement practice established by the resolution of Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of July 29, 1996 in the claim of OKH "May" to the State property fund of the Kyrgyz Republic about the property right to N10 shop arrived on October 15, 1997.

Brings the following arguments into reasons for the petition of OKH "May".

In 1992, the Maysky sovkhoz, according to the legislation, was transformed by general meeting of labor collective to Consolidation of peasant economy "May". The charter of OKH "May" was approved and registered by the resolution of the state administration of Alamudunsky district for No. 173 of March 15, 1993. The state property fund of the Kyrgyz Republic, having withdrawn from the Chuya regional State property fund the application for the redemption of property of OKH "May", without the consent of labor collective, the resolution No. 351 of July 21, 1993 transformed OKH "May" to Maysky joint-stock company, at the same time, having excluded from structure of property of OKH "May" the cost of the shop No. which is earlier transferred to its fixed assets 10, located in the Osh market. 9353 of July 21, 1993 the shop No. 10 was sold by the resolution of the State property fund to OSOO "Seytek" in this connection OKH "May" appealed to the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic with the claim for recognition invalid the specified resolutions of the State property fund of the Kyrgyz Republic. The claim of OKH "May" was satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of April 11, 1995. The specified decision was left by the resolution of judicial board of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic on review of the decision according to the procedure of supervision of June 23, 1995 without change, and the cassation statement of the State property fund of the Kyrgyz Republic - without satisfaction.

In judicial session chairman of OKH "May" Dzhumashev Sh. K., having completely supported the petition, asks it to satisfy. Representatives of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic Tyurin V. I. and Medetbekova Ch. A., objecting to the petition, ask 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, as the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of April 11, 1995, the owner of shop No. 10, located in the Osh market OKH "May" is recognized, are recognized as invalid: the resolution of the State property fund of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 351 of July 21, 1993 "About transformation of Maysky sovkhoz to joint-stock company", the resolution No. 353 of July 21, 1993 "About transformation of shop No. 10 to limited liability company" and the agreement No. 64 of February 23, 1994 on purchase and sale of shop No. 10.

Judicial board of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, having considered the application of the State property fund of the Kyrgyz Republic for review of the decision according to the procedure of supervision, the resolution of June 23, 1995, left the specified decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic without change, and the cassation statement of the State property fund of the Kyrgyz Republic - without satisfaction.

Later over a year, on July 26, 1996, the Chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, on own initiative, without any appeal of the parties, being guided by Article 166 of the Arbitral Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, brought submission to Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic about cancellation of the specified court decrees and on the same day the order, for consideration of this case, approved structure of Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, including himself and three judges of the Supreme Arbitration Court.

The Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic created thus, three days later, the resolution of July 29, 1996, satisfied representation of the Chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, having cancelled the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of April 11, 1995 and the resolution of judicial board of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of June 23, 1995 on this case, refused satisfaction of claims of Maysky kolkhoz. The presidium, at the same time in the procedure established by the law did not inform the parties on availability of representation and time of consideration of the case, i.e. solved dispute on property without participation of the parties and identification of will of the owner concerning the property.

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