Доступ к правосудию на стадии кассации в рамках судебной реформы: анализ судебной практики

2025

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.54649/2077-9860-2025-3-9-18
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The article examines an institutional innovation within the judicial system of the Republic of Kazakhstan – the establishment, as of 1 July 2025, of independent cassation courts for criminal, civil, and administrative cases. The reform has been implemented on the basis of constitutional and procedural amendments adopted in 2024 and has been accompanied by judicial appointments and the redistribution of competences among judicial instances. The necessity of introducing a new tier of judicial review is substantiated by the limited scope of admissibility of complaints under the previous model. The article further provides a statistical analysis of the review of judicial acts across various categories of cases, including arbitration, public procurement, bankruptcy, labour, and social disputes. Particular attention is paid to the positive outcomes of the “full cassation” model in administrative proceedings. The expected consequences of the reform are emphasised, namely the reduction of the caseload of the Supreme Court, the enhancement of accessibility and quality of justice, and the promotion of uniformity in judicial practice. A comparative analysis with foreign legal systems reveals the distinctive features of the Kazakhstani approach and underscores the significance of judicial discretion as an object of review by the cassation instance.