The Specialised Inter-District Court for Administrative Offences of Astana on 19 December terminated the administrative case against the founder of FBRK Kirill Pavlov on the charge of spreading false information due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. At the same time, in the explanation accompanying the ruling, the court noted that the publication was allegedly unreliable and untrue. Court hearings were repeatedly postponed from mid-November.
The case was initiated following a complaint by Sunkar Eavision International LLP, which accused FBRK of publishing false information regarding the cost of drones for locust control. The disputed information was taken from an official document on the public procurement portal.
On 13 October, the district police inspector of the Yesil district police department, Arman Baydildayev, drew up an administrative offence report against Pavlov under Part 4 of Article 456-2 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Spreading false information").
Pavlov's defence - lawyer Sergei Utkin from the International Foundation for the Defence of Freedom of Speech "Adil Soz" - appealed against the actions of the district police inspector, pointing to procedural violations. The central argument was the question of the statute of limitations for bringing administrative proceedings. Utkin insisted that nearly three months had passed from the date of publication on 15 July to the drawing up of the report, which exceeds the two-month limitation period.
However, on 7 November, the Specialised Inter-District Court for Administrative Offences of Astana refused to uphold the complaint. The court did not examine the question of the statute of limitations on its merits, stating that this issue should be resolved during the direct consideration of the administrative offence case.
On 14 November, while Pavlov was on a business trip in Kostanay, the police under the pretext of taking a statement forcibly brought him to the police station and detained him for over three hours without drawing up detention documents. According to the lawyer, the case had already been transferred to the Astana court by that time, so only the court had the right to make such decisions. The hearings were postponed several times until the court issued its final ruling on 19 December.
Despite the case being discontinued due to the expiry of the statute of limitations, in its explanation the court noted that the publication was allegedly unreliable and untrue. The court did not, however, specify in what way the information from the official state source was unreliable.
During the proceedings, the company's lawyer argued that FBRK, through its publication on the cost of drones, had allegedly accused the company of corruption and collusion with a state body. However, the disputed article contained no such wording — it merely referred to facts from official documents on the public procurement portal.
It should be noted that the case generated significant media and public attention. Commenting on the court's decision, Kirill Pavlov expressed gratitude to everyone who supported him during this period.
"I want, first of all, to express my gratitude to the Legal Media Centre, the International Foundation for the Defence of Freedom of Speech 'Adil Soz', and all the lawyers and journalists who helped cover the proceedings, who helped with legal defence and psychological support. I am grateful to our entire editorial team for getting through this together and standing firm. I am glad that common sense remains in our judicial system and that it prevailed in this case," Pavlov stated.