Available in Russian
Author: Natalia Alenkina
DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2025-2-163-176
Keywords: tax disputes; arbitration; arbitration court; arbitrability; Kyrgyz Republic; private justice; public dispute; public interest; civil law relations; tax law relations; Constitution
This article examines the appropriateness of employing private justice mechanisms to resolve disputes arising from public legal relations, using tax arbitration in the Kyrgyz Republic as an example. Tax arbitration was introduced in Kyrgyzstan in January 2023 following the adoption of the new Tax Code. The article analyzes the key features of tax arbitration in Kyrgyzstan: disputes over appeals of tax authorities’ decisions by concerning the calculation and payment of taxes, as well as the collection of tax debts, have been reclassified as civil law disputes and declared arbitrable; taxpayers are given the choice to file claims either in a competent state court under administrative procedure rules or in arbitration; the consent of the tax authority to arbitration is presumed; disputes are resolved by a panel of three arbitrators. The article explores the risks and limitations of privatizing the function of adjudication through the lens of the main stakeholders in tax disputes: the state, the arbitral institutions, and the taxpayer. It draws parallels with similar legislative initiatives in Portugal and Georgia. Special attention is given to the critique of attempts to reclassify public tax disputes as private civil matters, circumventing constitutional limitations and distorting the legal nature of tax relations. The author argues that such a reform disregards the outcomes and principles of administrative justice reform and threatens to destabilize both the private justice system and administrative adjudication. Key sectoral concerns raised in the professional community regarding the implementation of tax arbitration include the use of presumed consent by the tax authority to arbitration-comparable to the concept of an open offer by the state in investment arbitration; the permissibility of settlement agreements in tax arbitration; and the determination of the party responsible for paying arbitral fees in tax disputes. By justifying the reform as a solution to the crisis of the state judiciary, the Kyrgyz legislators have deviated from the classical principles of arbitration-party autonomy, dispositiveness, and the consensual nature of proceedings. In the absence of a clear doctrinal foundation and adequate mechanisms for public oversight, the privatization of public disputes poses risks of institutional erosion, including the weakening of judicial sovereignty, the loss of transparency in tax governance, and the potential transfer of corrupt practices into the arbitral sphere. As such, the proposed arbitration model not only fails to strengthen the arbitral system but may also undermine its long-term stability and legitimacy.
About the author: Natalia Alenkina – Candidate of Sciences in Law, Associate Professor of the Law Program at the American University of Central Asia, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
Citation:
Alenkina N. (2025) Arbitrabel'nost' nalogovykh sporov v Kyrgyzstane: ispol'zovanie al'ternativnogo pravosudiya v publichnykh pravootnosheniyakh [Arbitrability of tax disputes in Kyrgyzstan: utilization of alternative form of justice within the context of public law relations]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.34, no.2, pp.163–176. (In Russian).
References
Alenkina N., Asanbayeva D. (2022) Prozrachnost' i dobrosovestnoye upravleniye v treteyskikh sudakh: opyt Kyrgyzskoy Respubliki [Transparency and good governance in arbitration courts: the experience of the Kyrgyz Republic]. Treteyskiy sud, no.2/3, pp.266–287. (In Russian).
Alenkina N. (2024) Nalogovyy arbitrazh v Kyrgyzskoy Respublike: svoboda osushchestvleniya chastnogo pravosudiya vs obespechenie publichnogo poryadka [Tax arbitration in the Kyrgyz Republic: freedom to exercise private justice v. ensuring public order]. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya, no.11, pp.63–70. (In Russian).
Bentham J. (1843) Draught of a New Plan for the Organization of the Judicial Establishment in France: With Critical Observations on the Draught Proposed by the National Assembly Committee, in the Form of a Perpetual Commentary. In: Bowring J. (ed.) The Works of Jeremy Bentham. Vol.4, Edinburgh: W.Tait, pp.285–304.
Bermann G.A. (2018) What Does it Mean to be “Pro-Arbitration”? Arbitration International, vol.34, no.3, pp.341–353.
Biernat S. (1994) Prywatyzacja zadań publicznych: problematyka prawna, Warszawa; Kraków: Wydaw. Naukowe PWN.
Bortnikov S.P., Ageeva G.E., Pracko G.S. (2020) Settlement Agreement in Cases Arising from Public Relations: Example of Tax Disputes. In: Ashmarina S.I., Mantulenko V.V. (eds.) Global Challenges and Prospects of the Modern Economic Development, London: European Publisher, pp.990–997.
Da Rocha J.F. (2015) Post-Modern State, Tax Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. In: Villa-Lobos N., Carvalhais Pereira T. (eds.) The Portuguese Tax Arbitration Regime, Coimbra: Edições Almedina, pp.17–36.
Dos Santos Serra M. (2015) Administrative and Tax Arbitration — Grounds and Ethical Perspective. In: Villa-Lobos N., Carvalhais Pereira T. (eds.) The Portuguese Tax Arbitration Regime, Coimbra: Edições Almedina, pp.11–16.
Ermakova E.P. (2022) Privatizatsiya grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva, ili Novyy chastnyy protsess v SShA [Privatization of civil proceedings, or the “New Private Process” in the United States], Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya. no.3, pp.59–70. (In Russian).
Goradze G. (2007) Chastnyy arbitrazh v uregulirovanii nalogovykh sporov [Private arbitration in the settlement of tax disputes]. Treteyskiy sud, no.5, pp.78–83. (In Russian).
Kaidatzis A. (2009). A Typology of the Constitutional Limitations on Privatization. Hellenic Review of European Law, International Edition, pp.79–96.
Karabayev B. (2022) Perspektivy razvitiya instituta treteyskogo razresheniya nalogovykh sporov v Kyrgyzskoy Respublike [Prospects for the development of the institution of arbitration resolution of tax disputes in the Kyrgyz Republic]. In: Alenkina N. (ed.) Arbitrazh na rubezhe peremen: traditsii, tekhnologii, trendy [Arbitration at the turn of change: traditions, technologies, trends], Bishkek: Turar, pp.83–109. (In Russian).
Kharitonov L.A. (2022) Privatizatsiya pravosudiya: libertarianskiy proyekt [Privatization of justice: a libertarian project]. Pravo i upravleniye, no.9, p.59–65. (In Russian).
Khvaley V. (2023) Arbitrazhnyye kacheli (na primere razvitiya zakonodatel'stva ob arbitrazhe Frantsii) [Arbitration swings (based on the development of arbitration legislation in France)]. In: Alenkina N. (ed.) Arbitrazh: siluety i teni [Arbitration: silhouettes and shadows], Bishkek: Turar, pp.112–118. (In Russian).
Kim T., Sabko S. (2022) O podgotovitel'nykh rabotakh k rassmotreniyu nalogovykh sporov v treteyskom sude [On preparatory work for the consideration of tax disputes in arbitration court]. In: Alenkina N. (ed.) Arbitrazh na rubezhe peremen: traditsii, tekhnologii, trendy [Arbitration at the turn of change: traditions, technologies, trends], Bishkek: Turar, pp.74–82. (In Russian).
Manov G.N. (1996) Teoriya prava i gosudarstva. Uchebnik [Theory of law and state. A textbook], Moscow: BEK. (In Russian).
Muller W., Henriques D.G. (2016) Tax Arbitration in Portugal. Schieds VZ, no.6, pp.318–321.
Park W.W. (2009) Arbitrability and Tax. In: Mistelis L.A., Brekoulakis S.L. (eds.) Arbitrability: International & Comparative Perspectives, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, pp.179–205.
Paulsson J. (2021) Ideya arbitrazha [The idea of arbitration], Moscow: Rossiyskiy institut sovremennogo arbitrazha. (In Russian).
Resnik J. (2019) The Functions of Publicity and of Privatization in Courts and Their Replacements (from Jeremy Bentham to #MeToo and Google Spain). In: Hess B., Koprivica Harvey A. (eds.) Open Justice: The Role of Courts in a Democratic Society, Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp.177–252.
Strel'tsova E.G. (2023) Privatizatsiya pravosudiya: monografiya [Privatization of justice: a monograph], Moscow: Prospekt. (In Russian).
Vlasenko N.A. (2009) Teoriya gosudarstva i prava: Nauchno-prakticheskoye posobiye dlya samostoyatel'noy podgotovki studentov vsekh form obucheniya [Theory of state and law. Scientific and practical manual for independent training of students of all forms of education], Moscow: Yurisprudentsiya. (In Russian).
Zimmermann J. (2006) Prawo administracyjne, 2nd ed., Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.