The President of Kazakhstan signed the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Amendments and Additions to the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan” (hereinafter, the “CPC RK”) concerning the introduction of modern formats of court operations, reduction of excessive judicial procedures and expenses (hereinafter, the “Law”). The Law entered into force on 22 June 2020.
Below is an overview of the most significant changes introduced by the Law.
The provision exempting courts from collecting evidence on their own initiative has been eliminated. Under the new amendments, courts now supervise proceedings and create conditions enabling the parties to exercise their procedural rights to a full and objective examination of case circumstances (paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the CPC RK).
The court has been granted the right, on its own initiative, to take any measures provided by law to collect and examine case materials, verify the soundness of the parties’ arguments and the reliability of evidence submitted to the court, as well as to perform other actions aimed at achieving the objectives of civil proceedings. Previously, the court did not possess such authority, and this innovation intends to enable the court to establish material facts.
The court now also has the authority to verify the authenticity of evidence submitted, not only upon the parties’ request but also on its own initiative. This aims to expand judicial discretion regarding the verification and evaluation of evidence.
The court has been granted the ability to examine witnesses using technical means of communication. This amendment aims to facilitate the hearing of witness testimony using modern communication tools.
The court may, on its own initiative, issue a judicial commission. Such a commission may assist in correctly determining and clarifying circumstances relevant to the case, thereby expanding judicial discretion in establishing facts.
Materials necessary for expert examination are now determined by the court. If witness testimony is required for the examination, the court may summon and question such witnesses in the presence of an expert. This innovation further enhances judicial discretion.
A judge is now authorised to issue an order, on their own initiative, to secure (collect, examine) evidence located in another city, region, or country. Previously, such orders could only be issued upon satisfaction of a party’s motion.
If a person who requested to participate in hearings via technical means fails to ensure their participation, the court may deem the absence unjustified. This amendment strengthens procedural discipline in electronic court hearings.
The court may, taking into account the views of the parties, continue hearings and/or render a decision outside regular working hours.
A recess may be declared during the hearing, the duration of which is determined considering the parties’ views. This aims to reduce the number of adjourned hearings and, consequently, costs associated with court notifications.
At the start of the substantive hearing, the court is now obliged to additionally outline:
• the claimant’s demands;
• the respondent’s objections;
• the undisputed and disputed facts, as well as the evidence submitted and attached to the case.
After this, the judge must clarify whether the parties wish to submit any additions and/or clarifications. This innovation aims to facilitate the full and accurate identification of facts relevant to the resolution of the case.
A new rule provides that a motion to set aside an arbitral award is to be reviewed by the appellate court in a panel of no fewer than three judges. Previously, such motions were considered by the court of first instance. The Supreme Court stated that this amendment introduces a more appropriate review mechanism and reduces risks of potential abuse.
Below is an overview of the most significant changes introduced by the Law.
- Evidence and Proof
The provision exempting courts from collecting evidence on their own initiative has been eliminated. Under the new amendments, courts now supervise proceedings and create conditions enabling the parties to exercise their procedural rights to a full and objective examination of case circumstances (paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the CPC RK).
The court has been granted the right, on its own initiative, to take any measures provided by law to collect and examine case materials, verify the soundness of the parties’ arguments and the reliability of evidence submitted to the court, as well as to perform other actions aimed at achieving the objectives of civil proceedings. Previously, the court did not possess such authority, and this innovation intends to enable the court to establish material facts.
The court now also has the authority to verify the authenticity of evidence submitted, not only upon the parties’ request but also on its own initiative. This aims to expand judicial discretion regarding the verification and evaluation of evidence.
The court has been granted the ability to examine witnesses using technical means of communication. This amendment aims to facilitate the hearing of witness testimony using modern communication tools.
The court may, on its own initiative, issue a judicial commission. Such a commission may assist in correctly determining and clarifying circumstances relevant to the case, thereby expanding judicial discretion in establishing facts.
Materials necessary for expert examination are now determined by the court. If witness testimony is required for the examination, the court may summon and question such witnesses in the presence of an expert. This innovation further enhances judicial discretion.
- Judicial Commissions Initiated by the Judge
A judge is now authorised to issue an order, on their own initiative, to secure (collect, examine) evidence located in another city, region, or country. Previously, such orders could only be issued upon satisfaction of a party’s motion.
- Court Hearing
If a person who requested to participate in hearings via technical means fails to ensure their participation, the court may deem the absence unjustified. This amendment strengthens procedural discipline in electronic court hearings.
The court may, taking into account the views of the parties, continue hearings and/or render a decision outside regular working hours.
A recess may be declared during the hearing, the duration of which is determined considering the parties’ views. This aims to reduce the number of adjourned hearings and, consequently, costs associated with court notifications.
At the start of the substantive hearing, the court is now obliged to additionally outline:
• the claimant’s demands;
• the respondent’s objections;
• the undisputed and disputed facts, as well as the evidence submitted and attached to the case.
After this, the judge must clarify whether the parties wish to submit any additions and/or clarifications. This innovation aims to facilitate the full and accurate identification of facts relevant to the resolution of the case.
- A Motion to Set Aside an Arbitral Award Is Now Considered by the Appellate Court
A new rule provides that a motion to set aside an arbitral award is to be reviewed by the appellate court in a panel of no fewer than three judges. Previously, such motions were considered by the court of first instance. The Supreme Court stated that this amendment introduces a more appropriate review mechanism and reduces risks of potential abuse.