Unicase Law Firm is launching a Legal Alert series dedicated to the key provisions of Kazakhstan’s new Construction Code of January 9, 2026, No. 253-VIII ZRK (the “Code or Construction Code”), which enters into force on 1 July 2026. The new Construction Code replaces the long-standing Law on Architectural, Urban Planning and Construction Activities of 16 July 2001 No. 242 (the “Law”) and introduces a unified, codified framework governing every phase of a construction project’s lifecycle.
This first instalment addresses the following consequential reforms: the expansion of joint and several liability among project participants, the codification of the technical owner institution, restructured licensing and digital oversight, revised warranty periods for completed works, and a digitalised declaration of conformity regime.
Joint and Several Liability: a Structural Shift
Among the most consequential departures from the prior legislative regime is the Construction Code’s reconfigured approach to liability allocation. Rather than maintaining the strictly siloed distribution of risk between owner, designer, technical supervisor, and contractor, the Code embraces a more integrated model under which multiple project participants may be held simultaneously liable for construction defects, regulatory violations, and the consequences of commissioning a non-compliant facility.
The scope of this liability framework extends beyond the private sphere. In defined circumstances it reaches state bodies exercising urban-planning control, issuing permitting documentation, conducting project design reviews, or overseeing mandatory construction standards. The state, in other words, may form part of the liability chain to the extent that a failure in its public-law functions contributes to harm or structural deficiency.
The practical implications for EPC and EPCM structures are particularly significant. Under a joint-and-several regime, an owner or investor may pursue claims against multiple project participants concurrently, without first establishing the precise apportionment of fault among them. This meaningfully strengthens the claimant’s procedural position but it correspondingly elevates the legal and financial exposure of general contractors, design firms, and technical owners, all of whom now face a heightened risk of contribution or indemnity claims within the project structure.
The Technical Owner
The Construction Code introduces, for the first time at the legislative level, a formally defined institution of the technical owner , a role applicable to turnkey construction projects on technically and technologically complex facilities classified as Category I and II responsibility, including large-scale industrial and energy projects. Where such conditions are met, the owner retains the right to appoint a technical owner.
The technical owner’s legal status, functional mandate, and liability exposure are defined directly in the Construction Code. The technical owner assumes comprehensive authority over project execution: from engineering surveys and design documentation through contractor selection, quality supervision, as-built recording, and handover. In relation to the contractor, the technical owner acts as a principal in its own right and bears statutory liability for deficient performance of its functions.
This development reflects a deliberate legislative choice to institutionalise professional project management within Kazakhstan’s construction sector, aligning domestic practice more closely with the EPC and EPCM delivery models prevalent in cross-border infrastructure transactions.
Construction Licences: from Gatekeeping to Continuous Oversight
A further pillar of the reform is the recalibration of the state’s supervisory relationship with licensed construction participants. The Construction Code shifts the regulatory emphasis away from the point-in-time scrutiny applied at the moment of licence issuance toward a model of ongoing, risk-based monitoring of compliance with qualification criteria, including the availability of certified specialists, material and technical resources, a demonstrable project track record, and adequate equipment.
Integral to this transition is the deployment of digital infrastructure: an automated registry of construction sector participants and integration with the e-Qurylys platform will enable authorities to monitor contract performance, documentation flows, and permit status in real time. The practical consequence is a regime of continuous digital oversight, which carries expanded post-licensing control mechanisms and the power to suspend or revoke licences upon detection of non-compliance.
For EPC contractors and developers, this means a need for stricter compliance control, confirmation of personnel and technical resources, as well as readiness for continuous verification of compliance with qualification requirements throughout the entire lifecycle of the project.
Warranty Periods: Differentiated Minimus
The Law previously provided for a warranty period of 2 years from the date of acceptance of the facility into operation. The Construction Code has significantly revised the approach to regulating warranty periods in construction, establishing a differentiated and more stringent regime: the general minimum warranty period has been increased to 5 years, while for load-bearing structures, roofing, and exterior walls (facades) of buildings it has been extended to 10 years from the date of acceptance of the facility into operation, thereby strengthening the protection of the interests of owners and investors.
Accordingly, these new mandatory minimum standards will directly affect the structure and terms of future EPC contracts, including the allocation of risks between the owner and the contractor.
Declaration of Conformity and Works Acceptance
The Construction Code preserves and elaborates the declaration of conformity – the instrument by which a contractor attests that completed works conform to the approved design and applicable state technical standards. The institution itself is not new but its further integration with Kazakhstan’s digital regulatory infrastructure is.
Under the new framework, it appears that the declaration of conformity becomes part of an automated registry. Any defect recorded after acceptance is captured within the digital system and may serve as the basis for warranty claims throughout the applicable guarantee period. In effect, the digital registry transforms what was previously a point-in-time paper exercise into a continuous audit trail, with practical implications for dispute resolution, evidentiary standards, and the timeliness of defect notifications.
Limited of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book/report/article, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy of completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For further information, please contact:
Nurlan Kubenov, Partner, Unicase
nurlan.k@unicaselaw.com
