TOPICAL ISSUES OF ANTIMONOPOLY LEGISLATION APPLICATION: JUDICIAL PRACTICE AND LEGAL POSITIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN
1. Introduction. – 2. Research Methods. – 3. Results and Discussion. – 3.1 The Role of Regulatory Resolutions of the Supreme Court of the RK to Ensure the Uniformity of Judicial Practice in the Field of Competitive Activity. – 3.2 Judicial Practice of Consideration of Administrative Cases Related to Violation of Antimonopoly Legislation. – 4. Conclusions and Suggestions.
Abstract
Background: This article examines the role of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan's legal positions in ensuring consistency in judicial practice in cases involving the application of competition (antimonopoly) law. It focuses on the judiciary's evolving role in the context of the establishment of administrative justice and the increasing complexity of state market regulation. It argues that decisions of the highest judicial authority increasingly go beyond resolving individual disputes and acquire systemic significance for legal interpretation and enforcement.
Method: The study employs formal legal, systemic-structural, and comparative legal methods. The empirical basis includes administrative court decisions and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan rulings in antimonopoly cases. These methods allow identification of stable patterns of judicial interpretation and assessment of their impact on the development of competition law regulation.
Results and Conclusions: The analysis shows that the Supreme Court's legal positions serve a coordinating function, ensuring coherence in judicial practice in the absence of a formally established doctrine of precedent. The study identifies a gradual shift from a formalistic to a functional approach in assessing administrative acts issued by competition authorities, where emphasis is placed not on the form of the act but on its legal effects. It also shows that Supreme Court jurisprudence helps fill legislative gaps and resolve normative uncertainties, thereby shaping more predictable standards of legal application. The study shows that in Kazakhstan a model of de facto precedential influence is gradually taking shape, where the Supreme Court's legal positions begin to play a guiding role for lower courts. This contributes to greater consistency in judicial practice and improves legal certainty in antimonopoly regulation. At the same time, this development inevitably raises broader questions about how far courts should go in shaping the content of law and where the boundary lies between interpretation and law-making.
About Authors
Yermek Abdrassulov*
Dr. Sc. (Law), Prof. at the Department of Constitutional and Civil Law, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4835-9760
Corresponding author, formulated the structure and main findings of the paper; collected, systematised, and analysed legal sources; reviewed the academic literature; drafted the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion; contributed to the writing of the Materials and Methods, and Results and Discussion sections; and handled all correspondence with the journal editor.
Murat Ospanov
PhD Student, Department of Constitutional and Civil Law, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4901-7276
Co-author, conceptualised the core idea and overall framework of the article; participated in drafting and editing the Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, and Conclusion sections.
Baurzhan Smatlayev
Dr. Sc. (Law), Dean of the Law School, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5543-2822
Co-author, collected relevant judicial decisions on the research topic; contributed to writing and revising the Introduction and Conclusion sections.
Aidana Nurgaliyeva
PhD Student, Department of Constitutional and Civil Law, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8797-7399
Co-author, collected legal sources, conducted a comparative analysis with Western legal schools, and processed primary data; participated in writing the Results and Discussion section.
Aizhan Abdrassulova
PhD in Law, Chief Specialist at the Center for Private Legislation,
Institute of Parliamentarism under the Department of Presidential Affairs, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
abdrassulova@umto.kz
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2634-1418
Co-author, gathered domestic and international literature on the research topic; participated in drafting the Abstract and Introduction, as well as writing the Results and Discussion section.
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The authors declare that the opinions and views expressed in this manuscript are free from any influence of any organisation.
Funding Statement
This research received no external funding. The APC for this publication was funded by the author(s) or their institution/university], in accordance with the AJEE Charges Policy.
Rights and Permissions
Copyright: © 2026 Yermek Abdrassulov, Murat Ospanov, Baurzhan Smatlayev, Aidana Nurgaliyeva, Aizhan Abdrassulova. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Editors
Managing Editors – Dr. Olena Terekh; Valentina Kryvolapova. English Editor – Robert Reddin. Ukrainian Editor – Lilia Hartman.
References
1. Abdrassulova A, ‘Official Clarification of Normative Legal Acts: The Experience of the EAEU Countries and Gaps in Legal Regulation of the Republic of Kazakhstan’ (2021) 3(136) Bulletin of LN Gumilyov Eurasian National University: Law Series 11 <https://doi.org/10.32523/2616-6844-2021-136-3-11-20> accessed 19 April 2026
2. Allen RJ, ‘Foreword: The Nature of Discretion’ (1984) 47(4) Law and Contemporary Problems 1 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1191684> accessed 19 April 2026
3. Andhare S, ‘Role of Judges in Development of Law with Reference to Realist Theory’ (2025) 5(12) Indian Journal of Legal Review 438 <https://ijlr.iledu.in/role-of-judges-in-development-of-law-with-reference-to-realist-theory/> accessed 19 April 2026
4. Arifin F, ‘Reforming State Administration Law in the Digital Era: The Impact on Public Policy Efficiency’ (2024) 23(3) Pena Justisia Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum 7403, <https://dx.doi.org/10.31941/pj.v23i3.5078> accessed 19 April 2026
5. Awad D, ‘Judicial Review Post-Vavilov: Are Courts “Correcting” Administrative Decisions?’ [2020] Dentons Canada Regulatory Review <https://www.canadaregulatoryreview.com/judicial-review-post-vavilov-are-courts-correcting-administrative-decisions/> accessed 19 April 2026
6. Bernatt M and Zoboli L, ‘The Enforcement of Competition Law in the EU: A Critical Overview’ (SSRN, 30 December 2023) <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4309073> accessed 19 April 2026
7. Biggar DR, Judicial Enforcement of Competition Law (OCDE/GD(97)200, Roundtables on Competition Policy no 13, OCDE 1997) <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.141067> accessed 19 April 2026
8. Bratus D, ‘Protection of Civil Rights in Antimonopoly Disputes (Problems of Judicial Practice for the Investment Ombudsman's attention)’ (PRG, 30 November 2018) <https://prg.kz/document/?doc_id=33386552&pos=9;223> accessed 19 April 2026
9. Cappelletti M, The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective (Clarendon Press 1989)
10. Craham L, ‘Strong Decisions and Stare Decisis in Co-ordinate Courts’ (2024) 35(2) King’s Law Journal 224 <https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2023.2236733> accessed 19 April 2026
11. Dworkin R, Law’s Empire (Harvard UP 1986)
12. Fraser CA, ‘Constitutional Dialogues Between Courts and Legislatures: Can We Talk?’ (2005) 14(2-3) Constitutional Forum 7 <https://doi.org/10.21991/C9QX0S> accessed 19 April 2026
13. Hamid AMA, ‘Administrative Liability for Damages Caused by Artificial Intelligence Systems in Public Services: An Analytical Study in Light of the Principles of Legality and Transparency’ (2025) 13(4) Humanities and Social Sciences 382 <https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20251304.21> accessed 19 April 2026
14. Hart HLA, The Concept of Law (2nd edn, OUP 1994)
15. Hildebrandt M, ‘Algorithmic Regulation and the Rule of Law’ (2018) 376(2128) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 20170355 <https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0355> accessed 19 April 2026
16. Ibáñez Colomo P, ‘Law, Policy, Expertise: Hallmarks of Effective Judicial Review in EU Competition Law’ (2022) 24 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 143 <https://doi.org/10.1017/cel.2022.7> accessed 19 April 2026
17. Ivanova R, ‘Growing Influence of Judicial Control of Administrative Courts on Public Administration Bodies’ (2023) 9 Economics, Finances, Law 82 <https://doi.org/10.37634/efp.2023.9.19> accessed 19 April 2026
18. Jenny F, ‘Opening Speech’ in Judicial Enforcement of Competition Law (OCDE/GD(97)200, Roundtables on Competition Policy no 13, OECD 1997) 16 <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.141067> accessed 19 April 2026
19. Kelsen H, Pure Theory of Law (University of California Press 2022)
20. Kostruba A and others, ‘Legal Gaps: Concept, Content, Problems of the Role of Legal Doctrine in Overcoming them’ (2023) 44(2) Statute Law Review 1 <https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmac016> accessed 19 April 2026
21. Maltz EM, ‘The Function of Supreme Court Opinions’ (2000) 37(5) Houston Law Review 1395 <https://houstonlawreview.org/article/4810-the-function-of-supreme-court-opinions> accessed 19 April 2026
22. Ogwezzy MC, ‘Appraisal of What Constitutes Legal Gaps and How They Are Filled in Different Jurisdictions’ (2014) 41(1) Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law 141 <https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/JMCL/article/view/14340> accessed 19 April 2026
23. Oppermann B, ‘On the Role of Precedents and Legal Certainty in German Private Law’ (2018) 27(1) Studia Iuridica Lublinesia 107 <https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2018.27.1.107> accessed 19 April 2026
24. Pavčnik M, ‘Questioning the Nature of Gaps in the Law [(Organic) Gaps in the Law]’ (2012) 7(16) I-Lex: Rivista di Scienze Giuridiche, Scienze Cognitive ed Intelligenza Artificiale 119 <http://www.i-lex.it/articles/volume7/issue16/pavcnik.pdf> accessed 19 April 2026
25. Raz J, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality (OUP 1979) <https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198253457.001.0001> accessed 19 April 2026
26. Sandler J, ‘Uncompelling Uniformity’ (2024) 76(6) Florida Law Review 1961 <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5027826> accessed 19 April 2026
27. Schrepel T, ‘Friedrich Hayek's ‘Contribution to Antitrust Law and Its Modern Application’ [2014] ICC Global Antitrust Review 199 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548420> accessed 19 April 2026
28. Stetsyk N, ‘Case Law of the Supreme Courts in Post-Soviet Legal Systems’ (2018) 11 Juridiskā Zinātne 62 <https://doi.org/10.22364/jull.11.05> accessed 19 April 2026
29. Thomas RS, ‘The Role of Courts in Reviewing Competition Agencies’ Decisions to Prevent Arbitrariness’ (2025) 5(1) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law 729 <https://ijirl.com/volume-v-issue-i/> accessed 19 April 2026
30. Whish R and Bailey D, Competition Law (10th edn, OUP 2021)
31. Zhang S, ‘An Analysis of the Roles of the Anti-monopoly Law in Sustainable Economic Development’ (2023) 63(1) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Financial Technology and Business Analysis 40 <https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/63/20231368> accessed 19 April 2026
Reviews for article
Add a Review
АНОТАЦІЯ УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ МОВОЮ
Дослідницька стаття
АКТУАЛЬНІ ПИТАННЯ ЗАСТОСУВАННЯ АНТИМОНОПОЛЬНОГО ЗАКОНОДАВСТВА: СУДОВА ПРАКТИКА ТА ПРАВОВІ ПОЗИЦІЇ ВЕРХОВНОГО СУДУ РЕСПУБЛІКИ КАЗАХСТАН
Єрмек Абдрасулов*, Мурат Оспанов, Бауржан Сматлаєв, Айдана Нургалієва, Айжан Абдрасулова
АНОТАЦІЯ
Передумови. У статті досліджено роль правових позицій Верховного Суду Республіки Казахстан у забезпеченні єдності судової практики у справах, пов'язаних із застосуванням конкурентного (антимонопольного) законодавства. Основну увагу приділено трансформації ролі судової влади в контексті становлення адміністративної юстиції та ускладнення механізмів державного регулювання ринку. Обґрунтовано, що рішення найвищої судової інстанції все частіше виходять за межі вирішення окремих спорів і набувають системного значення для тлумачення та застосування права.
Методи. У статті використано формально-юридичний, системно-структурний та порівняльно-правовий методи. Емпіричну основу дослідження становлять судові рішення адміністративних судів та постанови Верховного Суду Республіки Казахстан у справах про порушення антимонопольного законодавства. Застосування зазначених методів дає змогу виявити сталі моделі судового тлумачення та оцінити їхній вплив на розвиток правового регулювання конкуренції.
Результати та висновки. Аналіз засвідчує, що правові позиції Верховного Суду виконують координаційну функцію, забезпечуючи узгодженість правозастосовної практики за відсутності формально закріпленої доктрини судового прецеденту. Виявлено поступовий перехід від формального до функціонального підходу в оцінці актів антимонопольних органів, де вирішальне значення має не зовнішня форма документа, а його реальні правові наслідки. Доведено, що практика Верховного Суду сприяє заповненню законодавчих прогалин і подоланню нормативної невизначеності, формуючи більш передбачувані стандарти правозастосування. У результаті в Казахстані de facto формується модель прецедентного впливу вищих судових інстанцій. Це підвищує правову визначеність, водночас актуалізуючи питання щодо меж судової дискреції та нормотворчості.
Ключові слова: Антимонопольне законодавство, судове правозастосування, правова позиція Верховного Суду, нормативні постанови Верховного Суду, єдність судової практики, усунення прогалин у сфері конкурентного права, адміністративна юстиція, адміністративний суд.
Publication history
-
DETAILS FOR PUBLICATION
Date of submission: 09 Apr 2026
Date of acceptance: 03 Jul 2026
Online First Publication: 29 Sep 2026
Publication: Nov 2026
Was the manuscript fast-tracked? - No
Number of reviewer reports submitted in the first round: 2 reports
Number of revision rounds: 2 rounds with major revisions
Technical tools used in the editorial process
Plagiarism checks - Turnitin from iThenticate
https://www.turnitin.com/products/ithenticate/
Scholastica for Peer Review
https://scholasticahq.com/law-reviews
Paperpal for Academic Editing & Proofreading
https://paperpal.com/
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors sincerely thank the editorial board of Access to Justice in Eastern Europe and
the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, constructive recommendations,
and professional guidance during the peer review process, which significantly helped
improve the quality of this manuscript.
AI DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors declare that no Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools or automated writing
technologies were used in the research, drafting, data analysis, or preparation of this
manuscript. The entire manuscript was authored, analysed, and revised solely by the
human authors.
How to cite it?
-
Abdrassulov Y, Ospanov M, Smatlayev B, Nurgaliyeva A and Abdrassulova A, ‘Topical Issues of Antimonopoly Legislation Application: Judicial Practice and Legal Positions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan’ (2026) 9(4) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe <https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-9.4-a0002016>
