Issues related to the confiscation of illegally acquired property are very important for the development of our state and society, notes Karen Zadoyan, President of the Armenian Lawyers Association, emphasizing that the anti-corruption strategy and the 2023-2026 action plan have also envisaged a number of procedures related to the improvement of this institution.
The Armenian Lawyers Association and the Anti-Corruption Coalition of Armenian CSOs are currently monitoring the actions of 2023-2024: “Our focus has also included the action to improve and modernize the institution of confiscation of illegally acquired property, which envisaged that the law should be revised, improved, and made more effective, taking into account international experience, since when it was adopted in 2020, a number of expert circles, including our organization and the coalition, came forward with observations and suggestions.”
Despite this fact, legislative changes did not take place in 2024. The ALA president had proposed as early as 2016 that such proceedings be applied in Armenia, but in a format where proceedings are initiated not against a person, but against property.
The Venice Commission positively assessed this approach, stating that the state can apply to court with such claims.
Proposing two criteria, the Venice Commission noted that one of them relates to inaccessible property, the other to bona fide possession: “According to their assertion, property, as well as evidence confirming its legality, may be inaccessible and not under the control of a specific person; in this case, it should be taken into account and such evidence should not be required.”
The other issue concerned the retroactive application of the law – if it was adopted on May 23, 2020, can it also be applicable to relationships of an earlier period, as it may have a tightening effect.
It should be emphasized that there is currently no Constitutional Court decision regarding the Law “On Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property,” which could be a guideline for the development of the institution, especially in a situation where the anti-corruption court is already making verdicts, and after the decision, a new circumstance may be brought by presenting grounds for taking cases to new examination.
“The Constitutional Court does not demonstrate proper transparency and accountability on this issue, and does not present to the professional community and the public in general the reasonable timeframes for when this decision will be published,” said the ALA president.
Details in the video.
