NAME OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC
of February 11, 1997
On idea of the deputy of General Court of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic Zhorobekov Zh. of recognition unconstitutional Item 5 of Article 333 and Item 5 of Article 323 of the Code of civil procedure of the Kyrgyz Republic, as inappropriate to part two of article 83 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic
Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic as a part of the presiding Bayekova Ch. T., vice-chairman Sutalinov A. A., Dryzhak P. N. judges, 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 Abdurekhmenov D.,
parties: the representative of the deputy of General Court of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic Boyarinova Valentina Vasilyevna who is acting on the basis of the power of attorney of January 22, 1997, the signed deputy of General Court of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic Zhorobekovym Zholborsom; the vice-chairman of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of Aknazarovy Kalima Korchubekovna who is acting on the basis of the power of attorney of January 28, 1997, the signed Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic; the representative of General Court of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic Amanaliyeva Cholpon Akmatbekovna who is acting on the basis of the power of attorney of January 30, 1997, signed Toraga of General Court of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic
Having heard the report of the judge Satybekov S. S., speech of the representative of the deputy of General Court of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic Zhorobekov Zh. - Boyarinova V. V., the representative of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic Aknazarova K. K. and representative of General Court of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic Amanaliyeva Ch. A., having researched the provided materials, the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic
established:
On January 17, 1997 the deputy of General Court of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic Zhorobekov Zh. with idea of recognition unconstitutional Item 5 of Article 333 of the Code of civil procedure of the Kyrgyz Republic and inappropriate to article 83 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, and also cancellation of determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of August 14, 1996 about Dunganov E. A. recovery appealed to the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic. at work.
The deputy Zhorobekov Zh. in the representation refers to the fact that Bishkek of April 18, 1996 is left by the decision of May Day district court without satisfaction Dunganov E. A. claim. about its recovery at work. According to its writ of appeal, the judicial board on civil cases of the Bishkek city court, determination of May 29, 1996 left the specified decision of district court without change.
Judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic on August 14, 1996, having considered case according to the procedure of supervision on protest of the chairman of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, changed the decision of district court and determination of the Bishkek city court and made the new decision on recovery at Dunganov E. A. work. At the same time the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic allowed violation of requirements of article 88 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic affirming rights of defense without having informed the party on this judicial session on which the new decision on the substance of dispute is made, and this most went beyond requirements of article 83 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic according to which only supervision implementation is assigned to the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic.
During preparation of case for judicial session, the deputy Zhorobekov Zh., having added the requirements, asks to recognize unconstitutional Item 5 of Article 323 of the Code of civil procedure of the Kyrgyz Republic as inappropriate to part two of article 83 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, believing that investment with the right of bringing of protest to the judgment of the officials named in Item 5 of Article 323 of the Code of civil procedure of the Kyrgyz Republic which took legal effect contradicts article 83 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic.
In judicial session the representative of the deputy Zhorobekov of Zh. Boyarinov V. V. supported representation completely and asked it to satisfy.
Representative of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic Aknazarova K. K. agreed with the requirement in idea of illegality of Item 5 of Article 323 of the Code of civil procedure of the Kyrgyz Republic, and in other part representation asks to leave without satisfaction.
The representative of General Court of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic Amanaliyeva Ch. D. supported representation, including its reasonable.
Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic, having researched case papers and having discussed arguments of the parties, considers that representation of the deputy Zhorobekov Zh. is subject to satisfaction on the following bases.
From the provided materials it is seen that the decision of May Day district court of April 18, 1996 to Dunganov E. A. it is refused the claim for recovery at work and collection of the salary for induced truancy. This decision of district court is left determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Bishkek city court of May 29, 1996 without change, and the writ of appeal of Dunganov E. A. - without satisfaction.
The chairman of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, having supported Dunganov E. A. complaint., brought protest according to the procedure of supervision in judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic which the determination of August 14, 1996, without canceling earlier accepted in the matter of decision of the courts, made the new decision on Dunganov E. A. recovery. to former position - the Bishkek Gosvettsentr's chief also collected the salary for time of induced truancy.
Article 83 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, granted the right of implementation of supervision of judicial activities in the field of civil legal proceedings only to the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic and such right is not granted to any official in the state.
Besides, investment of Supervisory Court with the right of adoption of the new decision without cancellation earlier accepted in the matter of decisions, involves availability of at the same time mutually exclusive two judgments on the same case about what visually witnesses civil case in Dunganov E. A. claim. about recovery at work.
DECIDED:
2. Cancel operation of article 323 and Item 5 of Article 333 of the Code of civil procedure of the Kyrgyz Republic.
3. Determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of August 14, 1996 on civil case in Dunganov Eric Abdykulovich's claim for recovery at work is not subject to execution.
4. The final decision, is not subject to appeal, becomes effective from the moment of acceptance and it is obligatory to execution by all bodies and officials.
Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info
Database include more 50000 documents. You can find needed documents using search system. For effective work you can mix any on documents parameters: country, documents type, date range, teams or tags.
More about search system
If you cannot find the required document, or you do not know where to begin, go to Help section.
In this section, we’ve tried to describe in detail the features and capabilities of the system, as well as the most effective techniques for working with the database.
You also may open the section Frequently asked questions. This section provides answers to questions set by users.