Facts of the case
Petitioner Bayzhumanov B., a former police lieutenant colonel from the East Kazakhstan Oblast Police Department, was dismissed at his own request on 14 March 2019, after serving for over 27 years, with a total length of service, including preferential calculations, of 34 years. On 17 July 2019, he was convicted for intentionally concealing a serious crime while in service and sentenced to two years of restricted freedom, along with a five-year ban from serving in law enforcement and the revocation of his police rank. Consequently, the Police Department terminated his “length-of service” pension benefits beginning 1 October 2019. Bayzhumanov challenged this termination in court, but after a series of legal proceedings, including a reversal by the Supreme Court, his claim was denied.
The Supreme Court reasoned that a court-ordered revocation of the police rank carries with it an immediate legal change in the petitioner’s eligibility to special benefits under the statutes governing pension payments. The petitioner was, thus, only entitled to otherwise generally-applicable pension benefits, as prescribed by law.
Question
Does the termination of special pension benefits for police officers who have been stripped of rank due to criminal convictions during their service violate the Constitution of Kazakhstan, specifically Articles 28 and 39, which, respectively, guarantee social security and outline conditions under which citizens’ rights may be restricted?
Holding
Potentially. The court acknowledged that the state has a constitutional duty to ensure social security, including pension benefits. Thus, “the state has no task of greater importance than ensuring the welfare of its citizens, including their material well-being, and is obligated to establish all necessary conditions within its power to secure a dignified standard of living for individuals.” The state may restrict or deprive individuals of their rights to social security only via procedures established by law. The court interpreted the existing provisions on pensions as clearly contemplating only two grounds for termination of special benefits: (a) a person’s death, and (b) a person’s permanent emigration abroad. Thus, the court held that held constitutional a particular interpretation of the provisions, as relevant to the underlying dispute.
Foreign Authorities Cited
- None mentioned.
Metadata
- Judges: Azimova (Chief); Eskendirov (Rapporteur); Nurmukhanov; Zhakipbaev; Zhatkanbayeva; Kydyrbaeva; Musin; Ongarbaev; Podoprigora; Sarsembaev; Udartsev
- Date: March 27, 2023
- Link: Baizhumanov
DISCLAIMER:
- The website’s summary of the Court’s holding is made for educational purposes only, is not legal advice, and does not form an attorney-client relationship. The summary represents author’s interpretation of the decision, and may be incomplete or inaccurate. For the text of the decision, see the hyperlink above.