Constitutional Court: Disagreement with Court Decisions Is Not a Ground for Constitutional Review

The Constitutional Court received an application challenging the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 169 of the Administrative Procedure and Process Code (APPC). Under this provision, the procedure for filing cassation appeals and conducting cassation proceedings is governed by the rules of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, unless otherwise provided by the APPC.

The applicant challenged judicial decisions rendered in a dispute concerning the recovery of a debt in favour of a microfinance organization. However, the courts of first instance, appellate, and cassation levels dismissed the applicant’s claims, applying the cassation appeal procedure established by the Civil Procedure Code.

According to the applicant, the contested provision thereby infringed the constitutional right to judicial protection and the principle of equality before the law and the courts.

Having examined the arguments presented in the application, the Constitutional Court emphasized that mere disagreement with judicial decisions does not, in itself, demonstrate the unconstitutionality of a legal provision.

The Court further noted that the applicant had fully exercised the constitutional right to judicial protection guaranteed by Article 13 of the Constitution, and that the applicant’s arguments had been duly considered by the courts at all levels of jurisdiction.