BRIEF REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF UNIFORMITY IN DOMESTIC JUDICIAL PRACTICE
Keywords:
legal entity, judicial practice, founder, bankruptcy procedure, creditor's claims, individual entrepreneur, subsidiary liability, company nameAbstract
According to the requirements of the current civil procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the violation of uniformity in the interpretation and application of the rules of law by the courts is the basis for review in cassation entered into force judicial acts. Legislating this requirement, the legislator notes the importance of uniformity in judicial practice. Indeed, uniform judicial practice formed by comprehensive analysis is a significant contribution to the construction of the rule of law.
In the article the author draws the reader's attention to the issues on which Kazakhstan's judicial practice has developed conflicting positions. For example, under the current domestic bankruptcy law, the register of creditors' claims does not include the claims of the founders (participants) of the debtor. However, the analysis of judicial practice regarding application of this prohibition, shows that, judicial practice develops in the opposite direction. There are legal positions confirmed at the level of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, allowing the inclusion of the requirements of the founders (participants) of the debtor in the register of creditors' claims. At the same time, on the basis of emergence of requirements of founders (participants) of the debtor, can also be various: the claims arising from the labor relation; the claims arising from the contractual relation, etc. Concerning each of these requirements there was a mutually exclusive inconsistent judicial practice.
In the article the author also draws attention to the existing controversial judicial practice on the possibility of bringing to vicarious liability of an individual entrepreneur in bankruptcy proceedings. The author, referring to a number of examples from judicial practice, comes to the conclusion that two mutually exclusive positions have also been formed on this issue. In the final part, the author pays attention to the application of the Statute of