On January 9, a hearing was held in the Anti-corruption Court, presided over by Judge Narine Avagyan, regarding the case of illicit property confiscation from RA’s 2nd President Robert Kocharyan and his associated persons.
The Department for Illicit Property Confiscation Cases of the General Prosecutor’s Office has filed a lawsuit against Robert Kocharyan and his wife Bella Kocharyan, daughter Gayane Kocharyan, her husband Vigen Chatinyan, two sons Levon and Sedrak Kocharyan, and their wives – singer Sirusho (Siranush Kocharyan) and Zaruhi Badalyan.
According to Iravaban.net, at this session, respondent Robert Kocharyan’s representative Aram Orbelyan filed a motion to apply the statute of limitations.
In the motion, he noted that within the case framework, the General Prosecutor’s Office has filed a lawsuit against Robert Kocharyan and his associated persons, and on October 11, 2023, the competent authority submitted several claims to court under the “Law on Confiscation of Illicit Property” regarding the alleged illicit origin of various properties.
According to him, this proceeding was initiated and included in the investigation based on Robert Kocharyan’s involvement in a known criminal case.
The respondent’s representative referenced Article 331 of the Civil Code, according to which the statute of limitations is the period for protecting rights through lawsuit of a person whose rights have been violated.
According to Article 333, point 11 of the same code, a special statute of limitations is established if a person’s rights violation has caused damage, and the violation is related to a corrupt action in the conclusion or execution of transactions as established by the code, then the statute of limitations for damage compensation claims is limited to 10 years from the date of the action that caused the damage.
Reference was also made to Article 335, which states that the expiration of the statute of limitations, which the disputing party applies for in accordance with the law, is grounds for the court to issue a verdict rejecting the claim in accordance with the law.
According to Orbelyan, the motion brought forward a longer period when the Civil Code establishes a general statute of limitations of 3 years.
The relevant part of the Civil Law Convention on Corruption was pointed out, which states that each party’s domestic legislation should provide for a statute of limitations period of not less than three years from the day the person who has suffered damage knew or reasonably should have known of the damage or the identity of the responsible person, however, such proceedings may no longer be initiated after the end of a period of not less than ten years from the date of the corrupt act.
“In fact, by the time the investigation began, 10 years had already passed from the moment of the alleged crime, that is, from the possible moment of corruption, 11 or 12 years had already passed since Robert Kocharyan held no state position to be a subject of corruption crime under the convention,” said Orbelyan.
In response to the lawyer, prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan from the Department of Illicit Property Confiscation stated that by law there can be terms different from the general term, and the general rule is that terms begin to run from the moment of learning about the violation of rights.
“I don’t share the view that in these proceedings we are protecting violated rights; rather, we are protecting state interests, which doesn’t necessarily require a violation of rights as in ordinary civil disputes,” noted the prosecutor.
Kocharyan countered the respondent’s representative, stating that the legislature has not provided for a statute of limitations institution in illicit property confiscation proceedings at all: “Yes, the term of the law is applied, but not in the sense that some time is considered a statute of limitations period for these proceedings, but rather the legislature has linked the consequences of violating certain procedural deadlines with the passing of the statute of limitations or equated them to it. All this is also evidenced by Article 20, part 3 of the law, where the legislature has provided that parallel to the main claim, other related claims can be presented, for which the Civil Code has set clear deadlines for the statute of limitations.”
After hearing the parties’ positions, the court first noted that before addressing the issue of distributing the burden of proof, regarding applicable legal norms, it disagrees with the plaintiff’s position that statute of limitations cannot be applied in these legal relations; at the same time, the court did not share the respondent representative’s opinion that Article 333, part 11 is applicable in this case, considering that part refers to damage compensation relations, while in this case they are dealing with illicit property confiscation relations.
Presiding Judge Narine Avagyan noted that Article 333, part 1 is applicable, according to which: For certain types of claims, the law may establish special terms that are shorter or longer compared to the general statute of limitations period.
“The ‘Law on Confiscation of Illicit Property’ establishes a term and calculation procedure, such position derives from both the presiding judge’s previous decisions regarding statute of limitations interpretations, as well as interpretations given in one of the Appeal Anti-corruption Court cases, where it was indicated that the statute of limitations rule established by Article 8, part 2 of the ‘Law on Confiscation of Illicit Property’ is a special rule determining the statute of limitations term and procedure, whose content does not fully coincide with the content of statute of limitations terms and calculation procedure established by the Civil Code,” said Avagyan.
Based on this position of the court, the respondent’s representative requested time to make additions to the motion and express position regarding them.
The motion discussion was postponed, with the next session scheduled for January 20.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
