NAME OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

SOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

of November 11, 1999

According to the petition of Kyrgyztelekom open joint stock company for recognition of Article unconstitutional and inappropriate to item 4 15, to Item 2 of Article 38, to Items 1, 2, 4 Articles 79, to Item 2 of Article 83 and article 90 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic of the law-enforcement practice established by determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 9, 1998 on complaint case of the citizen Salikov A. F. on actions of administration of republican production association of radio relay highways, television and broadcasting about refusal in purpose of preferential pension

Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic in structure: chairman, vice-chairman Sutalinov A. A., judges - Dryzhaka P. N., Kenensariyeva Ampere-second., Osmonova K. E., Satybekova S. S., Togoybayev Zh. Zh. and Esenaliyeva K. E.,

with participation of the court session secretary Kasymaliyev A. N.,

parties: representatives of Kyrgyztelekom open joint stock company Zhdanova Oksana Nikolaevna and Savinkov Igor Nikolaevich, the acting on the basis of the powers of attorney of July 4, 1999 signed by the chairman of the board - the president of Kyrgyztelekom open joint stock company, the representative of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, the judge Mambetaliyeva Almira Dzhukeshevna who is acting on the basis of the power of attorney of July 5, 1999, the signed Chairman of the Supreme 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 Kyrgyztelekom open joint stock company for recognition of Article unconstitutional and inappropriate to item 4 15, to Item 2 of Article 38, to Items 1, of 2, 4 Articles 79, to Item 2 of Article 83 and article 90 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic of the law-enforcement practice established by determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 9, 1998 on complaint case of the citizen Salikov A. F. on actions of administration of republican production association of radio relay highways, television and broadcasting about refusal in purpose of preferential pension.

Having heard the report of the judge Esenaliyev K. E., speeches of representatives: Kyrgyztelekom open joint stock company of Zhdanova O. N. and Savinkov I. N., Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, judge Mambetaliyeva A. D., having researched case papers, the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic

ESTABLISHED:

In the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic on March 12 and on July 12, 1999 the petition of Kyrgyztelekom open joint stock company, being the legal successor of republican production association of radio relay highways, television and broadcasting about recognition of Article unconstitutional and inappropriate to item 4 15, to Item 2 of Article 38, to Items 1, of 2, 4 Articles 79, to Item 2 of Article 83 and article 90 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic of the law-enforcement practice established by determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 9, 1998 on complaint case of the citizen Salikov A. F. arrived. on actions of administration of republican production association of radio relay highways, television and broadcasting about refusal in purpose of preferential pension.

The Kyrgyztelekom open joint stock company brings the following arguments into reasons for the petition. The decision of the Sverdlovsk district court of the city of Bishkek of April 24, 1998 satisfies the claim of the citizen Salikov A. F. This judgment is left determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Bishkek city court of July 1, 1998 without change. The judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, determination of December 9, 1998 upheld the specified court decrees, and the supervising claim - without satisfaction. According to Items 1 and 2 of article 79 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic justice in the Kyrgyz Republic is performed only by court. The court providing judicial protection shall proceed from the principle of the subordination of the Constitution and to the law fixed by item 4 of article 79 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic. The supervising claim was considered by judicial board of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, the body which is not provided by the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic. Requirements of Item 2 of article 83 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic and constitutional rights of Kyrgyztelekom open joint stock company of property, its legal and judicial protection, and also of the providing with justice guaranteed by Item 1 of Article 4, item 4 of Article 15 and Item 2 of article 38 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic are also violated.

In judicial session representatives of Kyrgyztelekom open joint stock company Zhdanova O. N. and Savinkov I. N., having supported the petition, ask it to satisfy.

Representative of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, judge Mambetaliyeva A. D. agreed with petition arguments.

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 Sverdlovsk district court of the city of Bishkek, satisfied with the decision of April 24, 1998 the claim of the citizen Salikov A. F. on refusal of administration of republican production association of radio relay highways, television and broadcasting in purpose of preferential pension also obliged the CEO of republican production association of radio relay highways, television and broadcasting to pay preferential pension according to the list No. 2 to Salikov A. F. before execution to it 60 years.

This judgment is left determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Bishkek city court of July 1, 1998 without change.

The judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, determination of December 9, 1998 upheld the specified court decrees, and the claim of the CEO of republican production association of radio relay highways, television and broadcasting - without satisfaction.

Realization of the rights to justice and on judicial protection shall be performed by the constitutional judicial bodies.

According to Items 1 and 2 of article 79 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, justice in the Kyrgyz Republic is performed only by court, courts of the Kyrgyz Republic are the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Kyrgyz Republic and local courts (courts of areas, the city of Bishkek, areas, cities, Arbitration Courts of areas and the city of Bishkek, military courts). Creation and organization of emergency, special courts and positions of judges is not allowed. The judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic is not provided in system of judicial bodies.

Judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, having considered the specified case according to the procedure of supervision, violated requirements of Item 2 of article 83 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic authorizing the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic to exercise supervision of judicial activities regional, Bishkek city, district, city and public courts.

Under the specified circumstances the Constitutional court of the Kyrgyz Republic considers that the law-enforcement practice established by determination of unconstitutional body - judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 9, 1998 is unconstitutional and 2 Articles 79, to Item 2 of article 83 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic contradict Items 1, and violates the constitutional rights of shareholders of Kyrgyztelekom open joint stock company on providing with justice and judicial protection of all 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 unconstitutional and inappropriate to Items 1, 2 Articles 79 and to Item 2 of article 83 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic the law-enforcement practice established by determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 9, 1998 on complaint case of the citizen Salikov A. F. on refusal of administration of republican production association of radio relay highways, television and broadcasting in purpose of preferential pension.

Satisfy the petition of Kyrgyztelekom open joint stock company.

2. Determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic of December 9, 1998 about leaving in force of the decision of the Sverdlovsk district court of the city of Bishkek of April 24, 1998 and determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Bishkek city court of July 1, 1998, and the claim of the CEO of RPO RMTR - without satisfaction 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