SIGNUM Litigation Lawyers have Successfully Represented the Interests of the Client, a Large Crude Oil and Natural Gas Mining Company

Our recent experience in dispute resolution includes representing the interests of the client by appealing the requirement given as a result of an audit on compliance of an object vulnerable to terrorism that necessitates an appropriate level of security.

In accordance with Art. 23-2 of the Law on Counterterrorism, audits on compliance of objects vulnerable to terrorism by heads and other authorized persons requiring an appropriate level of security are held by internal affairs bodies of the RK at least once a year. A list of objects vulnerable to terrorism is set by the Ruling of the Government of the RK on Approval of a List of Objects of the RK Vulnerable to Terrorism.

As a result of an audit, internal affairs bodies draw up an act. If violations of counterterrorism legislation are seen, a requirement for addressing violations is given to a head or another authorized person within 10 business days.

In case of nonperformance of a requirement in a timely manner, a protocol of administrative offence is drawn up and a fine is provided for under Art. 149 p. 1 of the Code of the RK on Administrative Offences. A second instance of noncompliance with a requirement within a year after imposition of an administrative penalty is subject to a fine and a suspension of activities or certain types of activities.

Thus, internal affairs bodies conducted the audit on the compliance of the client, which possesses an object vulnerable to terrorism (object related to mining and processing of fuel and energy natural resources) in accordance with the requirements provided by RK legislation on counterterrorism. As a result of the audit, the requirement for addressing violations was given and the protocol of administrative offence was drawn up.

The client did not agree with the issued requirement and filed a complaint with a higher body. As a result of a control check carried out based on the complaint filed, the higher body almost entirely supported the client’s position, considered its arguments to be reasonable, and cancelled most of the violations.

Thus, the higher body supported our arguments that inspectors’ requirements violate the principle of proportionality of measures on counterterrorism to a level of terrorism threat.