Constitutional Court: Differentiation of Social Benefit Eligibility Is Permissible Where Based on Objective and Socially Justified Criteria

Теlegram CС - https://t.me/consot_kz

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan received an application concerning the application of the List of Occupations Involving Hazardous Working Conditions for which employers are required to make mandatory occupational pension contributions (MOPCs).

The applicant argued that the rules governing the calculation of periods of employment under hazardous working conditions for the purpose of determining the contribution record for mandatory occupational pension contributions could violate the constitutional principle of equality and the right to social security.

Following a preliminary examination of the application, the Constitutional Court concluded that there were no grounds for initiating constitutional proceedings, as the issues raised concerned the assessment of factual circumstances and the application of sector-specific legislation, matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the competent public authorities and the ordinary courts.

At the same time, the Constitutional Court clarified that the Constitution guarantees the right to social security, while the procedures and conditions for exercising that right are determined by the Social Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The Social Code requires employers to make mandatory occupational pension contributions on behalf of employees engaged in hazardous working conditions and authorizes the competent state authority to approve the list of occupations covered by this scheme.

The Constitutional Court further noted that the list is compiled on the basis of sector-specific criteria, including the nature of the employee’s work functions, the duration of work performed under hazardous conditions, the characteristics of the workplace, and other relevant indicators. The determination of working conditions is a matter of sectoral regulation and does not fall within the scope of direct constitutional regulation.

The Constitutional Court also reaffirmed its previously established legal position that, when determining the grounds and conditions for granting specific forms of social security, differentiation in the rights of citizens is constitutionally permissible, provided that it is based on objective and socially justified criteria.