The Constitutional Court explained to a citizen the admissibility of objective criteria as the basis for legal differentiation

Теlegram CС - https://t.me/consot_kz

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan refused to accept for constitutional proceedings an appeal to verify the compliance of subparagraph 3) of paragraph 1 of Article 212 of the Social Code with paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The basis for the appeal was the applicant's disagreement with the refusal of the authorized body to grant pension payments for length of service, despite having completed 17 years of military service and having a total length of service of more than 20 years. In essence, at the time of his dismissal, the applicant had not reached the 25 years of service required by the Code to receive a special pension for length of service.

In the applicant's opinion, the established criterion violates his right to equality before the law and the courts, as well as deprives him of his social rights. The Constitutional Court, having examined the materials submitted, noted that the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution does not exclude the possibility of establishing differences in rights and obligations in the presence of reasonable and objective criteria. Differences in legal regulation, particularly in the area of social benefits, are permissible provided that they are applied consistently and serve a legitimate purpose.

As noted by the Court, the legislature has the right to introduce differentiated conditions for the appointment of pension payments for different categories of citizens, depending on the length of service, the nature of the duties performed, the conditions of dismissal, and other circumstances. The contested provision does not prevent the applicant from exercising pension rights on other grounds, including age or disability.

In this situation, the refusal to grant pension payments based on length of service is due to the applicant's failure to meet the criteria for length of service established by the Code, as confirmed by court decisions that have entered into legal force.

The Constitutional Court concluded that the contested provision does not violate the constitutional principle of equality, as it is applied on the basis of an objective criterion—length of service—and is not discriminatory in nature.

In accordance with the Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan,” the appeal was found to be inadmissible and was refused.