Abstract
This article analyzes the theoretical and practical aspects of the implementation of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 10 of the Administrative Procedural and Processual Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which includes the elements of suitability, necessity, and proportionality in the strict sense. The study examines the problems of its systematic application in administrative adjudication in Kazakhstan, as well as the doctrinal debate concerning its terminological correlation with proportionality and its historical origins in the nineteenth-century Prussian police law. The article traces the evolution of scholarly approaches from the formal requirement of legality to the contemporary understanding of proportionality as a mechanism for balancing competing interests, developed in the works of German scholars R. Krauss and P. Lerche. The empirical basis of the research is the analysis of the decision of the Specialized Inter-District Administrative Court of Astana in case No. 7194-25-00-4/315 concerning the challenge of the results of the “Best Researcher – 2024” competition. This case illustrates the consequences of failing to comply with each element of the proportionality principle: the absence of an assessment of the practical enforceability of the judicial act, the disregard of alternative remedies, and the disruption of the balance between the interests of the claimant and the 50 prize laureates. As a result, the judicial act proved impossible to enforce and created a threat to the rights of third parties. The conducted analysis demonstrates that a formalistic approach to the application of Article 10 of the Administrative Procedural and Processual Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan diminishes the protective potential of the principle of proportionality. The article substantiates the necessity of the systematic application of all elements of the proportionality test in administrative adjudication in order to ensure the legality of judicial acts and to maintain a proper balance between public and private interests.