Astana courts tend to support investors in their arguments with authorities

Published
correspondent for General News department
Investors also often win international litigations against Kazakhstan / Photo: Shutterstock

According to Aslan Tukiyev, chair of the judicial panel on administrative cases of the Supreme Court, investors won 78% of legal cases in Astana courts in 2023. It harms the country’s investment attractiveness, the official says.

«This data is terrifying. This means that in seven to eight cases out of ten, investors were right in their arguments with the government, claims of which were unjustified. This situation can have a negative impact on our economy as it demotivates investors. We are going to discuss this issue. We want this figure to decline; we as a country should improve the quality of public management,» Tukiyev said at the sidelines of the investment forum in Astana.

He also noted that international courts report similar statistics: Kazakhstan loses in seven to eight legal cases against investors.

It is worth noting that in 2019, Kazakhstani officials claimed the opposite, insisting that public agencies often win courts in their arguments with investors. However, these legal proceedings were mainly related to the cancelation of contracts signed between different agencies and Kazakhstani investors.

In May 2023, Kazakhstan introduced the mandatory practice of legal consultations to businessmen and investors within the country by regional prosecutors. At the time, Prosecutor General of Kazakhstan Berik Asylov criticized local executive bodies and controlling agencies for not doing enough to meet the needs of investors and businesses.

In turn, Marat Abishev, head of the Public Interest Protection Service, reported that over the first four months of 2023, the prosecutors revoked about 2,000 illegal proceedings for $1,238,453.

Representatives of tax agencies, police and local executive bodies accounted for the vast majority of violations. Often, they would file charges against businesses despite the lack of the event of an administrative crime, incorrect classification of a violation and after a limitation period.

Read also