Every year, tens of thousands of road traffic accidents occur on the roads of Kazakhstan. The state responds promptly to each one: police officers compile the necessary documentation, courts hear administrative offence cases and establish those at fault for violating traffic regulations.

However, once the court's ruling is handed down, the protection of the victim's rights effectively comes to an end.

Despite the fact that the state has already identified the person at fault, the circumstances of the accident, and the fact of the legal violation, the victim is forced to navigate a complex and arduous path to restore their violated rights. It is the victim who must approach the insurance company, gather documents, arrange for damage assessment, monitor the deadlines for claim review, engage in correspondence with the insurer, and, in the event of disagreement with the payout amount, file a lawsuit.

The at‑fault driver, by contrast, often simply presents their insurance policy and thereafter plays virtually no role in the compensation process.

This raises a legitimate question: does such a mechanism align with the principles of justice?

WHEN THE VICTIM BECOMES A HOSTAGE TO THE SYSTEM

The primary purpose of compulsory third‑party motor liability insurance is to protect the property interests of persons injured in road accidents.

Yet the current model is structured in such a way that, once an insured event occurs, the victim is effectively left alone to deal with the at‑fault party's insurance company.

Moreover, it is precisely the insurer of the guilty party that decides on the amount of the insurance payout, determines the extent of the damage, and often becomes the victim's procedural adversary.

This model inherently contains a conflict of interest.

The at‑fault driver's insurer has a vested interest in minimising payouts, whereas the victim has an interest in full restoration of their violated rights.

In practice, a citizen who did not breach traffic rules or commit any unlawful act is forced to independently navigate administrative procedures, incur time and financial costs, and prove circumstances that have already been established by state authorities.

WHY THE CURRENT MECHANISM NEEDS REFORM

Today, every vehicle owner pays an annual premium for a compulsory civil liability insurance policy.

However, when that very owner becomes a victim, their own insurance company plays virtually no role in defending their interests.

This begs a logical question: if a citizen faithfully fulfils their obligation to purchase an insurance policy, why – when an insured event occurs – are their interests defended not by the company to which they entrusted the insurance of their vehicle and to which they annually pay their premium, but rather by the insurer of the person at fault for the accident?

Such an approach contradicts the very nature of insurance as a mechanism for protecting the policyholder's property interests.

In many European countries, a different approach has long been in place. In France, Belgium, Italy and several other states, for instance, a direct claims settlement mechanism operates.

The victim applies exclusively to their own insurance company.

It is that company which receives the claim, arranges for vehicle inspection, commissions an expert assessment, determines the amount of damage, makes the insurance payment or arranges for vehicle repair.

Thereafter, the insurer independently recovers the amounts paid from the at‑fault driver's insurance company.

All legal, organisational and financial matters are resolved between professional participants in the insurance market, without the victim's involvement.

Thus, from the citizen's perspective, there is only one representative of their interests – their own insurance company.

WHAT COULD BE CHANGED IN KAZAKHSTAN?

It is submitted that the concept of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Vehicle Owners" needs to be revisited, and the principle of priority protection of the victim's rights should be enshrined.

To this end, it would be advisable to introduce the following changes:

First, to grant the victim the right to apply exclusively to their own insurance company, regardless of who is found to be at fault for the accident.

Second, to place on the victim's insurer the obligation to independently obtain administrative case materials, arrange for vehicle inspection, commission damage assessment, and liaise with the at‑fault driver's insurance company.

Third, to relieve the victim of the obligation to independently obtain documents that are already held by internal affairs bodies, the court, or state information systems.

Fourth, to establish a duty for the victim's insurer to support their client until full compensation for the damage caused is achieved.

Fifth, to provide for all settlements between insurance organisations to be carried out without the victim's involvement.

Finally, to impose liability on insurance organisations for breaching the deadlines for claim review and insurance payment.

THE STATE HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED THE AT‑FAULT PARTY – THE VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PROVE THE OBVIOUS

Once a court ruling under Article 610 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan enters into legal force, all legally significant circumstances have already been established by the state: who violated the traffic rules; who is the victim; the circumstances of the accident; and the causal link between the violation and the resulting consequences.

Consequently, placing on the victim the burden of re‑proving these circumstances to the insurance organisation is superfluous and unjustified.

A modern digital state should ensure automatic interaction between internal affairs bodies, courts, insurers and expert organisations, without the citizen's participation.

IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE THAT SHOULD UNDERPIN THIS REFORM

Since any road accident gives rise to two parties – the at‑fault party and the victim – the current system places the main organisational burden on the victim, who did not violate the traffic rules.

Such an approach can hardly be considered fair.

If the state has already established the identity of the offender, it is the offending party and their insurer that should bear the primary responsibility for remedying the consequences of the harm caused.

The victim should not be reduced to a go‑between for insurance companies, wasting time on obtaining documents, turning to independent assessors and navigating administrative procedures merely to restore their violated rights.

It is the at‑fault party who created the risk of harm. It is their civil liability that is insured. Consequently, the compulsory insurance system should operate primarily in the interests of the person who committed no offence and suffered property losses.

It is therefore submitted that a new fundamental principle should be enshrined in the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Vehicle Owners": "Maximum protection of the rights and legitimate interests of the victim who did not violate traffic rules, through full support by the victim's insurance company in the claims settlement process, and release of the victim from the obligation to independently perform actions related to obtaining insurance compensation, where such actions can be carried out by the insurer or obtained through interagency information exchange."

Such an approach would be consistent with the constitutional principles of justice, equality before the law, protection of property rights, and effective judicial protection.

The primary purpose of compulsory insurance should not merely be to insure the liability of the at‑fault party, but also to ensure genuine, timely and fullest possible protection for the victim.

It is the shift from the model of "the victim fights for compensation on their own" to the model of "the insurance company defends its client" that can elevate Kazakhstan's compulsory motor insurance system to a qualitatively new level.

The state has already determined who broke the law. The next step is to ensure that the consequences of that violation are remedied without imposing an additional burden on those who did not break it. This, in essence, is the true principle of justice and of a social state.

AN IMPORTANT BUT INCOMPLETE STEP

It must be acknowledged that Kazakhstan has already taken an important step towards digitalisation of accident settlement. Since 1 January 2024, a "European Accident Report" (Europrotocol) mechanism has been introduced, allowing road accident participants – provided the prescribed conditions are met – to document the incident without summoning police officers and to submit a claim to the insurance company in electronic format.

However, this mechanism applies only in cases where the amount of damage does not exceed 100 monthly calculation indices (MCI). If the cost of repairs exceeds this threshold, the victim is still forced to apply to the at‑fault driver's insurance company and go through the full claims settlement procedure under the general rules.

Thus, the digitalisation of accident reporting has simplified the documentation of certain insured events, but it has not changed the underlying philosophy of compulsory motor insurance.

Yes, the Europrotocol is an important step, but it is not the final stage of reform.

Today, Kazakhstan is building a legal and social state, founded on the constitutional principles of justice, human rights protection and respect for property rights. That is precisely why it is time to revisit the issue of improving the compulsory motor insurance system. It should be oriented not only toward insuring the liability of the at‑fault party, but above all toward the effective protection of the victim.

Reform of compulsory motor insurance is not merely about changing the mechanism of insurance payouts. It is a matter of putting the constitutional principle of human rights protection into practice. It is for this reason that I consider it necessary to bring the issue of improving the current compulsory motor insurance system to a broad professional, public and legislative debate.

Zulfiya BAKI
Judge at Court No. 2 of the Almaly District of Almaty,
Master of Laws, Legal Expert