As of July 1, 2025, three new cassation courts have begun operating in Kazakhstan. This significant development marks a new stage in the evolution of the country's judicial system and underscores the state's commitment to ensuring high standards of justice. The reform, implemented upon the instruction of the Head of State following a meeting with representatives of the domestic business community, is aimed at expanding access to justice and enhancing the opportunities to appeal judicial acts that have entered into legal force.
Since gaining independence, Kazakhstan has steadily developed its political, legal, and social institutions, alongside continuous reform of its judiciary. A key milestone in this process was the adoption of the 2005 Law on Jurisdictional Delimitation, aimed at simplifying legal proceedings, strengthening the role of local courts, and reducing the number of supervisory instances. Under this law, a single supervisory instance was retained within the Supreme Court, while most final decisions were rendered by cassation panels of regional courts.
In February 2012, further legislative amendments were adopted to improve the procedures for appellate, cassation, and supervisory review of cases, to reduce repetitive reviews of the same cases, and to streamline judicial procedures. However, these reforms were not designed for a fully functional three-tier system of "Supreme Court - Regional Court - District Court".
Consequently, courts at the same level began performing both appellate and cassation functions, which eventually led to institutional overlap and a loss of effectiveness. Until 2016, regional courts reviewed judgments both on appeal (for non-final decisions) and in cassation (for final decisions). The Supreme Court retained supervisory and re-supervisory functions.
In 2016, as part of the "100 Concrete Steps" national reform plan, the judicial system transitioned from a five-tier to a three-tier structure. Accordingly, cassation panels at the regional level were abolished, and supervisory judicial panels within the Supreme Court began functioning as cassation instances.
However, this transition did not fully resolve the core issue. In practice, a four-tier model emerged, consisting of two fully operational instances (trial at district courts, appeal at regional courts) and two limited instances (cassation and supervision within the Supreme Court). Not all judicial acts were subject to cassation review. Procedural law defined specific categories of cases that could not be reviewed through cassation. Additionally, there was a stage of preliminary, single-judge review of cassation petitions in civil and criminal matters, which drew criticism from litigants and legal practitioners.
The main source of dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court stemmed from the low percentage of cases admitted to full cassation review after preliminary screening approximately 5%. For example, from 2022 to 2024, out of 15 000 motions in criminal cases, only 535 (3.5%) were forwarded to the cassation panel. In civil matters, out of 31 000 motions, only 1 688 (5.4%) were accepted. Only administrative justice operated under a "universal cassation" model, in which all complaints against judgments of administrative courts were considered by the cassation panel.
Under the new cassation courts, the stage of preliminary review is eliminated. Citizens will have direct access to cassation. All petitions will be reviewed by a judicial panel in a court session with the participation of parties. Naturally, this reform will increase the workload of cassation courts, but it was a deliberate choice made to enhance access to cassation review.
In this new framework, the role of the Supreme Court has also shifted. It is now focused on three core functions, as outlined in Article 81 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan:
As the highest judicial authority for civil, criminal, and other cases under the jurisdiction of local and other courts, the Supreme Court is responsible for reviewing final judgments in exceptional cases after cassation. Such proceedings may be initiated upon the submission of a Supreme Court judge or a protest by the Prosecutor General.
Exceptional circumstances include cases that affect state or public interests, national security, may result in severe and irreversible harm to life, health, or the economy of Kazakhstan; infringe upon the rights and lawful interests of an indeterminate group of individuals or other public interests; involve sentences of life imprisonment; or demonstrate inconsistency in judicial interpretation and application of legal norms. Such reviews are expected to remain rare.
The Supreme Court hears cases that fall under its exclusive jurisdiction, such as administrative disputes challenging decisions or actions (or inaction) of the Central Election Commission or the Central Referendum Commission.
- 1934/1935 -
Previously sidelined due to a heavy caseload of cassation petitions, this function will now be actively revitalized. The process of issuing legal guidance is complex and labor-intensive. It begins with a comprehensive study of judicial practice through regular generalizations research into court enforcement activity within specific dispute categories or areas of legal relations.
Topics for generalization are selected based on quantitative and qualitative criteria. Quantitative criteria include a high volume of cases or a high rate of reversals in specific categories during appeal or cassation. Qualitative factors involve the importance of cases to citizens, businesses, or the state, and analysis of complaints submitted by process participants, including those received during personal receptions.
Judges identify consistent variances in legal interpretation through the study of case law. To assist with this, they now use advanced IT tools incorporating elements of artificial intelligence. Causes of divergence are analyzed ranging from legislative gaps and inconsistencies to varying interpretations of legal norms. Based on these findings, proposals are formulated to address and resolve the identified issues. If uniformity in judicial practice requires legislative or regulatory changes, recommendations are submitted to relevant authorities. Where clarification of judicial practice suffices, a draft normative resolution is submitted to the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court.
Currently, the legislative system includes 112 binding normative resolutions of the Supreme Court. Where no formal normative act is required, the Supreme Court may issue explanatory guidance pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Constitutional Law "On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges of the Republic of Kazakhstan". These clarifications serve as recommendations for lower courts. Such guidance may, for example, address issues of jurisdictional delimitation. This tool serves as an efficient mechanism to ensure consistency of judicial practice across various branches of proceedings, aligning with recommendations of the Venice Commission and leading international standards.
In addition to disseminating judicial practice reviews and analyses, Supreme Court judges regularly provide methodological support to lower courts through training and practical assistance.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan is taking all necessary measures to ensure the delivery of high-quality, consistent, and predictable justice an essential element in building public trust in the judiciary. ■
Lábjegyzetek:
[1] The Author is a Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The article reflects the author's opinion and cannot be interpreted as the Curia's opinion.
Visszaugrás
