On 18 May. the Anti-Corruption Civil Court continued the examination of the lawsuit filed by the Prosecutor General’s Office for confiscation of illicit property against Aram Vardanyan (known as “Vstrechi Aper”), his son and daughter
According to Iravaban.net, at the beginning of the session, the presiding judge Karapet Badalyan asked the parties for their position regarding taking photos and videotaping the court session. The respondent Aram Vardanyan, who appeared at the session, as well as the representatives of the respondents Lusine Sahakyan and Aramazd Kiviryan stated that they objected. According to the latter, they remain of the opinion that the session should be held behind closed doors, because there is “various confidential information” in the case, including regarding the minor.
The court, in response to the lawyer’s statement, noted that the court has already expressed its position on examining the case behind closed doors and rejected the motion presented by the respondent.
Aram Vardanyan stated in court that he also objects. “Videotaping, filming, recording, taping secretly. I object to everything.”
Karapet Badalyan partially satisfied the petition presented by the journalists, allowed to videotape only the court and the plaintiff side, but not the defendant side.
Further Aramazd Kiviryan petitioned to leave the claim unexamined. The respondent submitted that the persons acting as representatives of the prosecutor’s office are not authorized to act on behalf of the plaintiff. Based based on the above, the lawyer believes that, as such, no representative of the plaintiff party participated in the previous sessions.
“The document confirming the authority of the person who signed the claim, Nelly Ter-Torosyan, was not presented to the court. It turns out that the claim was signed by a person who did not have the authority to do so, and later, when appearing at court sessions, Nelly Ter-Torosyan did not present a power of attorney, a certificate was presented, and the economist of the department presented a letter that cannot be considered a power of attorney,” Aramazd Kiviryan said. and asked to leave the claim without examined.
Nelli Ter-Torosyan, the Prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the Prosecutor General’s Office, announced in court that any representative of the competent authority, by virtue of the law, is entitled to file a lawsuit, and a power of attorney was submitted to the court for the department’s economist. “There is no problem in terms of the legality of the participation of the competent authority, respectively, the prosecutor and the economist. The participation of the Prosecutor’s Office in this court session is not vulnerable.”
Aramazd Kiviryan insisted: only the Prosecutor General or the latters deputy can appear on the plaintiff’s side without a power of attorney. “If you are the Prosecutor General or a deputy, announce it so that we know. Let me tell you, I do not insist on my petition.”
Lusine Sahakyan also mentioned that if they are guided by the logic that every employee of this department has the right to come and file a claim, then other employees can do it as well. “Cleaners are also employees of this department. Does it mean that they should have come and presented themselves because they are employees of that department?”
Nelly Ter-Torosyan had nothing to add to the position she expressed. The court, considering the motion to leave the lawsuit without examination, decided to reject it. “The court has already checked the identity and powers of the plaintiff’s representatives, recognized them, so it does not see the need to address this issue again. In addition, the court considers the objections of the plaintiff’s representatives to be valid and wants to specify that the prosecutor has the right to file a claim for the protection of the state interests in court based on the Law “On Prosecution”, the Law “On Confiscation of Property of Illegal Origin” and the Judicial Code. Bringing a lawsuit to the court to comment that a power of attorney is necessary makes sense of the legal regulations defined by the laws and legal norms cited by me.”
The court session was postponed because the defendants’ representatives were busy with other cases, and there were quite a lot of questions regarding the basis and subject of the claim. Due to the effectiveness of the investigation of the case, the court granted the request of the lawyers.
The next court hearing was scheduled for 15 June.
Details in the video.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
