NAME OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

SOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

of April 27, 2000

according to the petition of Antalya limited liability company for recognition of Article unconstitutional and inappropriate to item 4 15, to Item 2 of Article 38, to Item 3 of Article 79 and Item 3 of article 84 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic of the law-enforcement practice established by the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 2, 1996 on case on the claim of Maksat joint stock bank to small commercial manufacturing enterprise "Antalya" about collection of credit debt

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

with participation of the court session secretary Astarkulov D., the parties: representatives of Antalya limited liability company Studenikina Lilia Vladimirovna and Enikeev Igor Anatolyevich, the acting on the basis of the powers of attorney signed by the director of Antalya limited liability company, the representative of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic Tyurin Vladimir Ivanovich who is acting on the basis of the power of attorney of March 11, 2000, the signed Chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, being guided by article 82 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, article 13 of the Law "About the Constitutional Court of the Kyrgyz Republic" and article 11 of the Law "About the Constitutional Legal Proceedings of the Kyrgyz Republic", considered in proceeding in open court the petition of Antalya limited liability company for recognition of Article unconstitutional and inappropriate to item 4 15, to Item 2 of Article 38, to Item 3 of Article 79 and Item 3 of article 84 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic of the law-enforcement practice established by the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 2, 1996 on case on the claim of Maksat joint stock bank to small commercial manufacturing enterprise "Antalya" about collection of credit debt.

Having heard the report of the Vice-chairman of the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic Sutalinov A. A., speeches of representatives of Antalya limited liability company of Studenikina L. V. and Enikeeva 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:

In the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic the petition of Antalya limited liability company (earlier small commercial manufacturing enterprise "Antalya") for recognition of Article unconstitutional and inappropriate to item 4 15, to Item 2 of Article 38, to Item 3 of Article 79 and Item 3 of article 84 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic of the law-enforcement practice established by the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 2, 1996 on case on the claim of Maksat joint stock bank to small commercial manufacturing enterprise "Antalya" about collection of credit debt arrived on March 2, 2000.

The following arguments are given to reasons for the petition. The claim was subject to consideration in the location of the defendant in Arbitration Court of Chuy Region, having considered case as Trial Court, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic violated the requirement of Item 3 of article 84 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic that the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic exercises supervision of judicial activities of Arbitration Courts of areas and the city of Bishkek. The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic unconstitutional law-enforcement practice violated the rights of Antalya limited liability company and its founder to providing with justice and the judicial protection fixed by item 4 of Article 15 and Item 2 of article 38 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic.

In judicial session representatives of Antalya limited liability company of Studenikin L. V. and Enikeev I. A. ask to satisfy the petition.

Representative of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic Tyurin V. I., without having agreed with petition arguments, asks to stop the constitutional legal proceedings.

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.

From the provided materials it is visible that the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic the decision of December 2, 1996 collected from the account of operation of small commercial manufacturing enterprise "Antalya" for benefit of Maksat joint stock bank 2064800 catfishes of principal debt, 51296 som of the state fee.

The item 4 of article 79 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic obliges the judge to submit only to the Constitution and the law, and Item 3 of article 84 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic reserved the right of implementation of supervision of judicial activities of Arbitration Courts of areas and the city of Bishkek for the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic. Despite it, having gone beyond these constitutional powers on implementation of supervision of judicial activities of Arbitration Courts of areas and the city of Bishkek, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic adopted the action for declaration to production on the first instance and considered it in essence, having allowed violation of Item 2 of article 7 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic obliging the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic to represent and perform the government within the powers established by the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic.

Proceeding from 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 December 2, 1996 on this case contradicts Item 2 of Article 7, to item 4 of Article 79 and Item 3 of article 84 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic and violates the constitutional rights of the founder of Antalya limited liability company on providing with justice and judicial protection of the rights and freedoms set by the Constitution and the laws guaranteed by item 4 of Article 15 and Item 2 of article 38 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic.

Based on stated and being guided by the subitem 8 of Item 3 of article 82 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, articles 13 and 14 of the Law "About the Constitutional Court of the Kyrgyz Republic", articles 10, of 11, of 13, of 14, of 24, of 25, 29 and 30 Laws "About the Constitutional Legal Proceedings of the Kyrgyz Republic", the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic

DECIDED:

1. Recognize 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 the law-enforcement practice established by the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 2, 1996 on case on the claim of Maksat joint stock bank to small commercial manufacturing enterprise "Antalya" about collection of credit debt.

Satisfy the petition of Antalya limited liability company.

2. The decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 2, 1996 about collection from the account of operation of small commercial manufacturing enterprise "Antalya" for benefit of Maksat joint stock bank of the amount of 2064800 som of principal debt, 51296 som of the state fee is not subject to execution.

3. The final decision, is not subject to appeal. Surely to execution by all state bodies, officials and citizens.

4. The decision to publish in "Sheets of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic", newspapers: "Tuusu's Kyrgyz", "Word of Kyrgyzstan", "Erkin Too" and "Our newspaper".

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