DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY OF KAZAKHSTAN JUDGES: HISTORICAL AND MODERN ASPECTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52026/2788-5291_2025_80_1_56Keywords:
disciplinary misconduct of judges, disciplinary responsibility of judges, disciplinary proceedings, disciplinary courts, disciplinary punishment, gross violation of the rule of law, defamatory misconduct, violation of judicial ethics, quality of justice, judicial juryAbstract
The presented work is devoted to the issue of disciplinary liability of Kazakhstani judges under the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan for committing any disciplinary offense incompatible with judicial office, infringing on legality and contrary to judicial ethics, their grounds, conditions, procedure and consequences of imposing disciplinary punishment.
The work actualizes the unresolved problems of challenging the legality of decisions, appealing against the legality of actions or omissions of bodies of the judicial community authorized by law to carry out disciplinary proceedings against judges and bring them to disciplinary responsibility. The author draws attention to the norms of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, by which Kazakhstani judges brought to disciplinary responsibility are completely deprived of the constitutional right to judicial protection guaranteed to them. At the same time, it has been established that to this day, the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan leads Kazakhstani judges away from bringing to justice and imposing penalties on them for committing a judicial error.
Defects and gaps in legislation have been identified, indicating that they have not been given a specific definition of the concept of disciplinary misconduct, criteria distinguishing between their types are not given, clear grounds, conditions, procedure and consequences of bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility are not regulated. The author notes the absence of a procedural form of legal proceedings established by law for the consideration and resolution by courts of cases and disputes related to bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility. At the same time, he appeals with statistical data on disciplinary cases and materials initiated against Kazakhstani judges over the past 3 years. In addition, he analyzes the practice and legal position of the Constitutional Court, which run counter to constitutional norms and generally recognized principles of law. At the end of the study, the author concludes his conclusions and recommendations.
