The event was attended by the heads of judicial panels on civil cases from regional and equivalent courts, representatives from the General Prosecutor's Office, ministries of justice and health, the border service of the National Security Committee, and the Republican Chamber of Private Bailiffs, as well as leaders of territorial departments of the SA.
This event was initiated as a result of an analysis of the practice of courts sanctioning the decisions of bailiffs to suspend temporary travel restrictions for debtors under enforcement documents wishing to leave Kazakhstan.
Travel restrictions are typically imposed on individuals who have unpaid debts exceeding 147,000 tenge (40 MRP) that are more than three months overdue. The only grounds for suspending the travel ban are the necessity for medical treatment abroad.
The analysis results indicated that over the past 10 months, 867 out of 1,768 requests for sanctioning were denied, which is approximately every second request submitted to the courts. The refusals were primarily due to insufficient evidence of the necessity for treatment abroad and the lack of available treatment options within the country.
Bailiffs were found to have issued decisions to suspend travel restrictions based on grounds not provided for by law (business trips, participation in competitions, funerals of close relatives, etc.).
Debtors cited common ailments that are effectively treated in Kazakhstan (osteochondrosis, gastritis, arthritis, pulpitis, etc.) as reasons for traveling abroad for medical treatment.
This situation is exacerbated by the absence of a list of diseases for which appropriate technologies and equipment are lacking in Kazakhstan. Additionally, the duration of the suspension is not regulated.
As a result, debtors often abuse their rights and, despite having multi-million unpaid debts, including those owed to the state budget and for alimony, manage to circumvent the restrictions and prohibitions imposed on them.
Moreover, the information exchange systems between government agencies regarding debtors are not sufficiently integrated, which further hinders bailiffs from monitoring the enforcement of court decisions.
As a result of the discussions, comprehensive recommendations were developed to address the deficiencies and gaps in this area, which have been sent to the relevant authorities.