On September 16, the Anti-Corruption Court, presided over by Judge Rudolf Avagyan, held a hearing on the case of confiscation of allegedly illegally acquired property belonging to Mihran Poghosyan, former head of the Judicial Acts Compulsory Enforcement Service and former MP, along with seven affiliated individuals.
According to Iravaban.net, only Arthur Hovhannisyan, representing Gagik Badalyan, appeared for the respondent side at the court session. He objected to video and photo recording of the hearing.
It should be noted that the representatives of the respondent Mihran Poghosyan and other respondents have submitted corresponding applications to no longer represent them in this case.
Advocate Arthur Hovhannisyan said they are preparing to assume representation of all individuals whose advocates have withdrawn through applications. He mentioned they haven’t yet received the signed power of attorney: “Considering there’s a notification issue, I don’t object to postponing the court session on this basis. At the same time, I inform that, as I promised last time, I will submit a motion to the court to discuss the constitutionality of the articles regarding the statute of limitations.”
Before presenting the motion, Hovhannisyan said that Aram Orbelyan’s presence is necessary for other actions. The latter’s absence, as is known, is due to his participation in the hearing of Constitutional Court Judge Hrayr Tovmasyan’s case, who is charged under Article 308 of the RA Criminal Code (2003) for abuse of official authority.
According to Iravaban.net, the lawsuit demands the confiscation of the cottage area in Tsaghkadzor, Kotayk region, and another property on Zakyan Street in Yerevan from Gagik Badalyan as property belonging to Mihran Poghosyan.
“We motion to suspend the court proceedings and apply to the Constitutional Court to determine the compliance of Article 8 of the Law on Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property with Articles 60 and 73 of the Constitution,” said Arthur Hovhannisyan.
It should be recalled that motions by respondents’ representatives to suspend proceedings and apply to the Constitutional Court in cases of confiscation of illegally acquired property have been repeatedly rejected by judges.
Noting the factual grounds for the motion, the advocate said that on December 26, 2014, Gagik Badalyan acquired the land plot on Zakyan Street, and on July 2, 2014, the cottage area in Kotayk region, while the lawsuit in this case was filed on September 29, 2022.
He said that according to part 7 of Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court is authorized to apply to the Constitutional Court regarding the issue of compliance with the Constitution if it finds that the permissible norm creates contradictions.
According to Arthur Hovhannisyan, the applicable norm is Article 8 of the Law on Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property, which states that the study can last a maximum of 3 years, and a claim submitted in violation of the article’s deadlines is considered submitted with a missed statute of limitations: “Article 73 of the Constitution prohibits, without reservation, the retroactive effect of laws and other legal acts worsening a person’s legal status, and extends this prohibition to all legal acts worsening a person’s legal status.”
According to him, after the acquisition of the mentioned areas in 2014, the statute of limitations for the state to present a claim against the person has expired, whereas the legislator, through Article 8, has retroactively applied the rules regarding the statute of limitations in a way that worsens the person’s situation, violating the respondent’s property rights.
The presiding judge asked why they believe the Civil Code is applicable in this case. Hovhannisyan responded that the state is demanding the property within the framework of civil legislation today, and the Civil Code is also put at the basis of the presented claim: “The legal basis that you can demand property from a person, terminate the right of ownership, this is regulated by the Civil Code.” The judge also inquired why they are challenging Article 8 specifically and not, for example, Article 2. Hovhannisyan said that in their opinion, part 2 of Article 8 cannot independently exclude the statute of limitations of the Civil Code.
Prosecutor Tigran Yenokyan said that the motion is groundless and subject to rejection, as the respondent side is convinced that Article 73 of the Constitution worsens the person’s situation, but there can be no talk of any unconstitutional norm, as Article 8 also provides that the study can be completed within this period in a favorable light for the respondent side.
“I believe there can be no talk of reasonable doubt, moreover, as we all know, 1/5 of the NA deputies have applied to the Constitutional Court and are challenging the entire law, including Article 8 of the law. I think that in case of applying to the Constitutional Court, the court is obliged to suspend the proceedings in this case, the necessity of which is absent, considering that the law is already being challenged in the Constitutional Court, and this cannot be a worsening norm,” said Yenokyan.
According to the prosecutor, the rule of confiscation of illegally acquired property is related to the study period, which sets the maximum term at 3 years, and here the 3-year statute of limitations provided by the Civil Code should not be identified with the 3-year period set by Article 8. He said the claim was filed within the prescribed 3-year period, and there is no missed statute of limitations.
After hearing the parties’ positions on the motion, the court recorded that the resolution of the case does not depend on the need to apply to the Constitutional Court. At the same time, it was noted that the moving party should justify the law’s incompatibility with the Constitution to such a degree that it creates apprehension in the court about continuing the case. On these grounds, the court rejected the presented motion.
The next court session is on October 7.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
