This year marks exactly five years since the establishment of administrative justice in the Republic of Kazakhstan. This period allows for taking stock of the courts' performance in the sphere of public-law disputes, as well as assessing their practical effectiveness. On this occasion, the Head of State, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, speaking at the International Forum on Administrative Justice in Astana, emphasized that this institution has become one of the most important instruments for shaping fair relations between the state, citizens, and businesses. It is precisely the active role of the court and the reallocation of the burden of proof that have become the primary tools for achieving this result.

At the same time, among representatives of the professional legal community, the view persists that the full potential of administrative justice has yet to be unlocked. There are issues with divergent interpretations of identical provisions of the Administrative Procedural Code, which creates legal uncertainty for citizens and businesses. These also include lengthy consideration of cases in appellate and cassation instances, problems with challenging subordinate legislation, refusals to accept administrative claims on formal grounds – where a single minor deficiency in documents results in the claim being left without consideration – and many other issues.

Aigul Koishibayeva, a judge of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty, spoke about how the institution of administrative justice actually works, what the active role of the court entails, why the five-year period of this institution's functioning is sufficient to assess not only the results of the reform but also its impact on the public administration system as a whole, how significantly online processes – including artificial intelligence technologies – have changed the work of judges, and what needs to be done in the coming years to increase citizens' trust in administrative courts and the entire system of public-law protection.

– July 2026 marks five years since the introduction of full-fledged administrative justice in Kazakhstan. How do you assess these years from the perspective of your professional experience as a judge? What are the main achievements so far, and what problems still remain?

– Five years of administrative justice is a sufficient period to assess not only the results of the reform but also its impact on the public administration system as a whole.

When the Administrative Procedural Code came into force in 2021, many experts rightly noted that this was not merely the adoption of a new procedural law but a fundamental change in the approach to the relationship between the state and the individual.

I consider the key achievement to be that administrative justice has been able to ensure genuine procedural equality between the parties in disputes with the state.

Prior to the introduction of the Administrative Procedural Code, disputes arising between state bodies and organizations vested with public authority were resolved under civil procedural legislation based on adversarial proceedings and equality of arms. The role of the court in an adversarial process was to create equal conditions for the parties to exercise their procedural rights and present evidence.

However, a citizen or entrepreneur often found themselves in an objectively weaker position vis-à-vis a state body, which possessed administrative resources, access to necessary information, and the ability to independently build an evidentiary record.

The introduction of administrative proceedings made it possible to create a legal regime for the effective restoration of violated rights and freedoms of citizens and legal entities.

At the International Forum on Administrative Justice, held on June 5, 2026, the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, noted that administrative justice has become one of the most important instruments for shaping fair relations between the state, citizens, and businesses.

Another important result is the strengthening of citizens' trust in judicial protection in the public-law sphere. Practice shows that citizens are increasingly using administrative justice mechanisms to protect their rights and legitimate interests. This indicates that society perceives administrative courts as a genuinely functioning tool for restoring violated rights.

At the same time, a number of issues remain that require further improvement.

First and foremost, this concerns the enhancement of the quality of administrative procedures directly within state bodies. Despite the positive dynamics of administrative justice, there are still cases of insufficiently reasoned decisions, formalistic approaches to handling citizens' appeals, and incomplete examination of case circumstances when adopting administrative acts.

As new categories of cases emerge, new judicial practice is being formed, which requires consistency and uniformity.

The issue of enforcing court judgments in administrative cases deserves special attention. After all, the effectiveness of administrative justice is determined not only by the quality of the judicial act but also by its timely and full implementation by the state body.

Therefore, the coming years should become a period of further improvement of administrative procedures, enhancement of the legal culture of public authorities, and strengthening of the uniformity of judicial practice.

– Could you tell us about the categories of cases that are most common in administrative courts today? What is the significance of expanding the scope of administrative justice following the changes introduced at the end of 2025?

– If we consider the structure of administrative disputes, over the past several years, the largest share has consisted of cases related to the enforcement of judicial acts, land relations, architectural and construction activities, taxation, public procurement, migration, social protection of the population, licensing, and permitting procedures.

Undoubtedly, the most significant innovation of late 2025 was the extension of administrative proceedings to cases challenging regulatory legal acts of state bodies.

At first glance, it may seem that this is merely a redistribution of jurisdiction over cases challenging regulatory legal acts of state bodies – from civil to administrative proceedings. However, in reality, the significance of these changes is far broader.

Previously, administrative courts examined the legality of individual administrative acts affecting the rights of a specific individual; now, they have gained the authority to assess the legality of regulatory provisions that apply to an indefinite circle of persons.

Such cases are of heightened complexity. The court must examine not only the circumstances of the specific dispute but also the compliance of the regulatory act with laws, constitutional principles, general principles of administrative law, and assess the consequences of its application.

In other words, administrative justice has acquired an additional tool for eliminating the causes of systemic violations committed by public authorities.

Therefore, the recent amendments to the Administrative Procedural Code should be viewed not merely as a procedural reform but as an important step toward strengthening the rule of law, improving the quality of public administration, and fostering a favorable environment for entrepreneurial development.

– One of the key features of administrative proceedings is the active role of the court and the obligation of state bodies to prove the lawfulness of their actions. How effectively does this principle work in practice?

– One of the most important features of administrative justice is the departure from the classical model of adversarial proceedings, in which the parties independently determine the scope of evidence and bear equal responsibility for its submission.

In administrative proceedings, the legislator deliberately established a different approach, taking into account the specific nature of public-law relations.

It should be noted that the active role of the court does not mean substituting for the functions of the parties or abandoning the principle of impartiality. Rather, it means that the court has the authority to independently initiate the examination of circumstances, request necessary documents, draw the attention of the participants to the insufficiency of evidence, and take measures for a comprehensive clarification of the factual circumstances of the case.

In practice, this approach significantly enhances the quality of justice. The court assesses not only the formal compliance of the decision with statutory requirements but also the state body's observance of the fundamental principles of administrative law: legality, fairness, proportionality, reasonableness, and the protection of the legitimate expectation.

The influence of this principle is especially noticeable in disputes related to entrepreneurial activity. Whereas previously businesses had to independently refute the findings of regulatory authorities, today it is the state body that must prove the lawfulness of its interference in entrepreneurial activity.

– How often do state bodies acknowledge their violations at the trial stage and withdraw contested acts? Is there a positive trend compared to the early years of administrative courts?

– Such cases occur quite frequently and, what is especially important, their number is gradually increasing. This is one of the most telling indicators of how the legal culture of public administration is changing under the influence of administrative justice.

It should be understood that the primary purpose of administrative proceedings is not to render as many judicial decisions as possible, but to restore the violated right. If a state body concludes that violations have occurred and eliminates them before the conclusion of the trial, this fully aligns with the objectives of administrative justice.

In the early years following the introduction of the Administrative Procedural Code, state bodies rarely reconsidered their decisions during judicial proceedings. This was largely due to the absence of established judicial and administrative practice, insufficient understanding of the new principles of administrative procedures, and a certain wariness toward the new procedural mechanisms.

Today, the situation is gradually changing. State bodies are increasingly using the statutory mechanisms for the independent elimination of violations. Often, after reviewing the case materials, the court expressing a preliminary legal opinion, or the establishment of additional circumstances of the administrative case in court, the administrative body concludes that it is necessary to revoke or amend its earlier decision.

It is important to note that this is not merely a formal acknowledgment of the plaintiff's claims, but a deeper process of forming a new managerial culture. State bodies are beginning to perceive judicial oversight not as a threat or punitive instrument, but as a mechanism for improving the quality of their own work.

Every case in which a body independently remedies a violation helps to prevent similar errors in the future, including by fostering uniformity in administrative procedures.

– Today, it is evident that digitalization, electronic notifications, online proceedings, including artificial intelligence technologies, have greatly changed the work of judges. What advantages and challenges do you see in this transition?

– Over the past few years, digitalization has become one of the key drivers of modernization of the judicial system.

The Törelik information system, the Judicial Cabinet service, automated case assignment, audio and video recording of court proceedings, and the Bank of Judicial Acts ensure convenient interaction between citizens and the courts, eliminate interference in the case assignment process, and contribute to the uniformity of judicial practice.

Digitalization covers all stages of judicial proceedings – from document submission to judgment issuance and the delivery of enforcement instruments.

The primary advantage of digitalization is the effective provision of access to justice. Today, a citizen or entrepreneur can file a claim, submit procedural documents, receive judicial acts, and participate in court hearings regardless of their location. This is especially important for residents of remote regions and representatives of small businesses.

The expeditiousness of case consideration has significantly increased. Electronic document exchange reduces the time required to obtain information and accelerates interaction between the court and the participants in the process.

Another equally important advantage is the transparency of judicial proceedings. Digital technologies allow for the recording of all procedural actions and provide participants with the opportunity to access not only procedural documents but also case materials online, which undoubtedly strengthens trust in the judicial system.

A significant achievement has been the introduction of intelligent assistants for judges. For instance, in 2023, the Digital Analytics of Judicial Practice system, which employs elements of artificial intelligence, was put into operation. It analyzes millions of judicial acts, identifies similar legal situations, and helps predict potential outcomes of disputes.

In general, the prospects for using artificial intelligence technologies are considerable. They can significantly enhance the efficiency of a judge's work by relieving them of routine technical tasks and providing additional analytical capabilities.

However, it is necessary to clearly understand the limits of applying artificial intelligence in the administration of justice. A judicial decision is not only the result of legal analysis but also an act of evaluating factual data and specific circumstances through the lens of law and the principles of justice, as well as the criteria applied in the evidentiary procedure. These actions cannot be fully delegated to artificial intelligence.

– In your view, what needs to be done in the coming years to increase citizens' trust in administrative courts and the entire system of public-law protection?

– Trust in the judicial system is a long-term process that is built on the daily practice of hearing specific cases, the quality of judicial decisions, and the effectiveness of protecting citizens' rights.

With regard to administrative justice, one of its key priorities remains the further improvement of the quality of public administration. The fewer unlawful, unfounded, or insufficiently reasoned decisions are made by state bodies, the fewer grounds there will be for disputes between the state and the citizen.

A second important area is ensuring uniformity in judicial practice. For participants in public-law relations, it is essential to understand how legal norms will be applied in similar situations.

Of particular importance is the institution of judicial oversight over the activities of public authorities. Administrative justice must not only remedy the consequences of specific violations but also contribute to the development of higher-quality public administration.

Undoubtedly, an equally important objective is raising the legal literacy of the population. The development of e-justice, the introduction of modern digital services, and the simplification of access to judicial information can make the judicial system even more open and understandable to citizens.

In recent years, administrative courts have been actively working to enhance the transparency of their activities. Reviews of judicial practice are published, and meetings are held with representatives of state bodies, businesses, the legal community, and the public. Such work must continue.

Special attention should be paid to the enforcement of court judgments. For a citizen, what matters is not only the fact that a ruling has been made in their favor, but the actual restoration of the violated right. Therefore, further improvement of mechanisms for the enforcement of judicial acts remains one of the most important tasks.

To summarize, it can be said that administrative justice in Kazakhstan has passed an important stage in its development. Over five years, substantial judicial practice has been accumulated, and an effective mechanism for protecting the rights of citizens and businesses has been established.

– Thank you for an interesting conversation.

Bakhtiyar TOKHTAKHUNOV