Information regarding the regulatory resolution of the Constitutional Court
(№ 65 of February 7, 2025)
The Constitutional Court considered a citizen’s appeal regarding the constitutionality of Article 914 of the Civil Code (Special Part).
According to this provision, claims of citizens and legal entities related to the organization, conduct of games or bets based on risk (gambling and betting) or participation in them are not subject to judicial protection if the organizer of gambling business complies with the conditions of gambling and (or) betting (claims of citizens and legal entities, related to the organization, conduct of games or bets based on risk (gambling and betting), or participation in them, if the organizer of gambling business complies with the conditions of gambling and (or) betting, are not subject to judicial protection, except for claims arising from the relations specified in Article 913 of this Code).
In the opinion of the subject of the appeal, such restriction contradicts the Constitution, limits his right to judicial protection on claims for recovery of winnings and puts him in an unequal position in relation to the organizers of gambling business.
In December 2023, the applicant applied to the court to recover the amount of the winnings. The first-instance court discontinued the proceedings and the appeal court upheld the decision, citing Article 914 of the Code.
As a result of the verification, the Constitutional Court stated that relations arising from gambling and betting are not recognized as subject to legal protection, since their specificity consists in the absence of counter obligations of the parties defined by law and the impossibility of their guaranteed performance. This approach does not contradict the Constitution. In turn, the exclusion of judicial protection of the winners of gambling games and bets organized by the state-licensed subject of gambling business contradicts the basic principles of civil legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and provokes non-fulfillment of contractual obligations by licensed organizers of gambling games.
The Constitutional Court also noted that some provisions of Article 914 of the Civil Code in its current wording are not formulated clearly enough, do not allow for their uniform understanding and application, and allow for different interpretations.
On the basis of the above, the Constitutional Court recognized Article 914 of the Civil Code as unconstitutional in the part of the words ‘if the organizer of gambling business complies with the conditions of gambling and (or) betting,’ and recommended the Government to consider the issue of bringing the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in compliance with this regulatory resolution in accordance with the established procedure.