Our lawyers overturned a KZT 562,250 fine for an overloaded truck
In short:
In short: a fine based on automatic weight control can be challenged. Here the court set aside the order because readings from different weigh stations contradicted each other and the legal basis in the order was stated incorrectly.
Our lawyers secured the cancellation of an administrative fine of KZT 562,250 imposed on the owner of a truck on the basis of automatic weight control. The court upheld the client’s complaint, set aside the transport inspection’s order and terminated the proceedings. The ruling was not appealed and has entered into force.
In short: automatic weight-control data is not the final word. The fine was cancelled for two reasons: two other weigh stations recorded no overload that same day, and the order cited a sub-paragraph of Article 571 of the Code of Administrative Offences that does not exist. The court applied the presumption of innocence and resolved the doubt in the owner’s favour.
Background
We were approached by the owner of a SITRAK truck who had been held administratively liable for allegedly exceeding the vehicle’s permitted weight limits.
On 3 July 2026 an automatic weight-control system at kilometre 6 of the Big Almaty Ring Road (BAKAD) recorded the alleged violation. On the basis of that data, the Transport Control Inspectorate for the Almaty Region issued an order to pay an administrative fine of KZT 562,250.
Disagreeing with the alleged violation, the client sought legal help. Our specialists analysed the case file, studied the data from the automatic weight-control systems and checked the legal grounds for the liability.
How we showed there was no overload
The case file showed that on the same day the truck passed other automatic weigh stations — at kilometre 38 of BAKAD and at kilometre 204 of the Almaty–Khorgos road. No excess over the permitted weight limits was recorded at either of them.
The data from the different automatic systems therefore contradicted each other, which cast doubt on the reliability of the original reading.
An error in the legal basis of the order
Reviewing the order, our lawyers found another significant point. It stated that liability was established by sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 6 of Article 571 of the Code of Administrative Offences. No such provision exists in that article.
To hold someone administratively liable lawfully, it is not enough to establish the facts of the alleged violation; the provision of law that establishes liability for the act must also be identified correctly. The error in the legal basis was examined by the court.
The court’s ruling
At the hearing, the applicant’s representatives drew the court’s attention to the contradictions in the automatic weight-control results and to the incorrect legal provision cited in the order.
Having examined the material, the court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish an administrative offence. Applying the presumption of innocence and the rule that irremovable doubt must be resolved in favour of the person held liable, the court upheld the client’s complaint.
- Court: the Specialised Inter-District Administrative Offences Court of Konaev, Almaty Region.
- Ruling: of 2 September 2026 in case No. 1920-26-00-3ж/261 — the client’s complaint was upheld.
- Outcome: the order of the Transport Control Inspectorate for the Almaty Region of 3 July 2026 was set aside and the proceedings were terminated. The ruling was not appealed and has entered into force.
- For the client: no obligation to pay the KZT 562,250 fine.
What truck owners should know
The case shows that even fines generated by automatic control systems can be successfully challenged when there are lawful grounds. Reliable evidence, correct classification of the offence and compliance with statutory procedure are what matter.
Seeking qualified help in time made it possible to identify serious flaws in the case file and restore the client’s rights. On the right to have any administrative case heard by a judge from the outset, see “Any administrative offence case can be transferred to a court”.
The lawyers at Osmar Group help challenge administrative fines, protect the rights of entrepreneurs and vehicle owners, and represent clients in the courts of Kazakhstan. Our starting point is that every decision of a state body must be lawful, well-founded and backed by reliable evidence.
Frequently asked questions
Can a fine based on automatic weight control be challenged?
Yes. In this case the court cancelled such a fine because readings from different weigh stations contradicted each other and cast doubt on the reliability of the recorded violation.
What led to the fine being cancelled here?
Two things: other weigh stations recorded no overload that same day, and the order cited a sub-paragraph of Article 571 of the Code of Administrative Offences that does not exist.
How did the case end?
The court set aside the transport inspection’s order and terminated the proceedings. The ruling was not appealed and has entered into force, and the client no longer has to pay the KZT 562,250 fine.
Need advice?
If this article raises questions for you, or you need qualified legal help, our specialists are ready to assist.
Legal basis
- •Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Article 571
- •Ruling of the Specialised Inter-District Administrative Offences Court of Konaev of 2 September 2026, case No. 1920-26-00-3ж/261