The court hearing on the case of confiscation of allegedly illegally acquired property related to Gagik Tsarukyan, the leader of the “Prosperous Armenia” party, former MP, businessman, and persons associated with him, continued in the Anti-Corruption Civil Court, presided over by Judge Lili Drmeyan.
According to Iravaban.net, the representatives of the respondent side objected to the video recording of the court session.
It should be noted that the respondent side was given time to familiarize themselves with the calculation files. When the presiding judge asked what questions they had regarding these, Varazdat Asatryan, the representative of the respondent Gagik Tsarukyan, said that not all initial data had been presented to them, and the formulas whose application resulted in important data were missing. He also noted that the bank transaction data were not complete either.
The respondent’s representative stated that he wanted to present a motion regarding the application of the statute of limitations, which was presented with the judge’s permission.
The motion stated that the study began on October 8, 2020, during which the Law “On Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property” was applied, Article 8, Part 1 of which stipulates that the study lasts for a maximum of 2 years, which can be extended by the competent authority for up to 1 year.
According to the case data, the study began on October 8, 2020, and the lawsuit was filed on October 9, 2023. Asatryan noted that the respondent considers it important that the 2020 edition of the law is applicable to the motion. He said that it is obvious that the prolonged nature of the study worsens the person’s status, and the study of a person’s information containing bank secrecy within the framework of another law is a direct and indirect intervention, which is also an aggravating provision.
Pointing to Articles 8 and 20 of the law, he emphasized that the party has committed a violation of the deadline for filing a lawsuit regarding the term of protection of rights, therefore, there is a need to apply the statute of limitations.
To Judge Lili Drmeyan’s question about when the prosecutor’s office should have filed the lawsuit, Asatryan said that the plaintiff should have filed the claim on October 8, 2022.
Prosecutor Hamlet Harutyunyan objected to the motion, stating that it should be rejected on the following two grounds: The Law “On Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property” has been amended, and with transitional provisions, the 2-year term has become 3 years. It was stipulated that the study, which is in the current phase, is subject to deadlines, which also applies to this study. There are documents containing a decision dated June 24, 2022, made by prosecutor Tigran Davtyan, which related to the extension of the study period. By this decision, the prosecutor recorded that international inquiries had been made, which necessitated extending the study period by 1 year.
“Even under the previous edition of the law, it is stipulated that the study can last 2 years, and due to international inquiries, it can be extended for 1 year. Also, under the previously effective law, a decision to extend the study period for one year has been presented, which is available in the case materials. Therefore, the motion is unfounded and subject to rejection,” said Hamlet Harutyunyan.
Varazdat Asatryan, the representative of the respondent side, said that prosecutor Tigran Davtyan was not empowered with such authority: “It’s the legislator who decided under what conditions it is extended, and the burden of proving these conditions is essential within the framework of the case examination. The plaintiff can make such a decision with the same observation and turn 2 years into 3, but the legislator has recorded what the condition for this is.”
Regarding the international inquiry, the judge asked whether there was evidence substantiating the basis for making an inquiry through mutual assistance, to which the prosecutor replied that the grounds had been provided to the parties. In one of the documents, there is a request for legal assistance, which states that the plaintiff is the Department for Cases of Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property of the General Prosecutor’s Office, the addressee is the competent authorities of the Republic of Bulgaria, and the subject is the request for legal assistance within the framework of the study.
Hamlet Harutyunyan stated that the responses received from Bulgaria substantiated that Gagik Tsarukyan and Javahir Tsarukyan have shares in a bottling company located there, moreover, a confiscation claim has been filed regarding these.
Prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan noted in his speech that initially, in the current edition, Article 8, Part 1 stipulates that the competent authority decides to extend the duration of the study for up to 1 year in the presence of appropriate grounds. He emphasized that this refers to a document submitted by a state body, which was sent to the plaintiff and then submitted to the court by the plaintiff, and these documents confirm that the inquiry was made on June 14, 2022, based on which a decision was made 10 days later to extend it for 1 year.
To the question of Lusntag Bezhanyan, the representative of the respondent side, about when the response to the inquiry from Bulgaria was received, Harutyunyan replied that they are clearly stated in the case materials – after October 2022.
According to the advocate, on June 9, 2022, a law was adopted that made changes to Article 8 of the law, and that 2 years maximum became 3 years: “Under these conditions, when they were making an inquiry in June and simultaneously making a decision to extend that period, aren’t they admitting that the amended norm was indeed a worsening norm for the person?”
Hamlet Harutyunyan said that this amendment was signed on June 29, 2022, came into force on July 10, 2022, and the decision was made before that period: “The fact that we made that decision does not mean that we challenged the constitutionality of the law amendment, but rather a decision was made under the current edition of the law.”
The discussion of the motion regarding the statute of limitations was concluded. The judicial act will be published on October 9 and will be sent to the parties.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
