Today, March 19, the preliminary court hearing continued in the Anti-Corruption Civil Court regarding the case of confiscation of allegedly illicit property belonging to former Deputy Chairman of the State Revenue Committee Armen Sakapetyan, presided over by Judge Lili Drmeyan.
According to Iravaban.net, as previously agreed by the parties, the respondent’s representative was supposed to present a corresponding position regarding the claim at this hearing, but a new prosecutor was involved in the case; the latter submitted a motion to postpone the hearing and to familiarize themselves with the case materials.
Prosecutor Tatevik Martirosyan replaced Nelli Ter-Torosyan, prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Illicit Property, informing that the previous prosecutor is temporarily incapacitated due to poor health, and besides that, she alone will represent the plaintiff in this case. She informed the presiding judge that this decision was made yesterday, March 18.
The respondent’s representative, Varazdat Asatryan, in his position regarding the motion, noted that from the perspective of case efficiency, they could distribute the burden of proof at this hearing.
The plaintiff’s representative said that the respondent’s position was submitted to the prosecutor’s office 1 month ago, which was not such a long period for the competent authority to provide a detailed response to those objections.
“Not only can I not express any position on behalf of the prosecutor’s office regarding the burden of proof, I am not even familiar with the facts of the case, which means if at this stage the court makes a decision regarding the distribution of the burden of proof, it will create appropriate grounds for appealing the judicial act, therefore I again ask the court to provide sufficient time to present a position,” said Martirosyan.
She also informed that after reviewing the position presented by the respondent, there may be a need to carry out other procedural actions, for example, changing the basis and subject of the claim, and it is essential for the competent authority that the court does not make a decision regarding the distribution of the burden of proof.
Presiding Judge Lili Drmeyan asked the plaintiff’s representative whether she also has no understanding of the volume of the case, to which the latter replied she was physically unable to familiarize herself with it.
The judge noted that the logic of the plaintiff’s actions is surprising, as instead of informing about the prosecutor’s incapacity and discussing the postponement of the hearing, a new representative is involved to familiarize themselves with the extensive case from scratch.
In response to the presiding judge, the prosecutor said that the change is not related to the previous prosecutor’s temporary incapacity, this is a systemic decision, also conditioned by the volume of cases and workload.
Respondent Armen Sakapetyan also expressed his position regarding the motion, saying that for 1 year the prosecutor’s claim has been in court, they have submitted objections regarding it, court hearings have taken place, and the prosecutor’s office has also postponed hearings to express a position regarding the respondent’s objections.
“During the previous court hearing, the representative of the competent authority accepted one of the circumstances we discussed and asked to include the circumstance of acceptance in the calculations during this period. That is, at this moment we have 1 accepted circumstance, which is very significant, it’s about 78 million drams. A situation arises where we have waited for 1 month, today the competent authority says changes have taken place in their office. We also have rights, I can also change a representative at every court hearing or delay,” said Armen Sakapetyan.
He also informed that based on the previous official statement made by the competent authority, they have made a calculation, as a result of which they have concluded a decision that one of the properties considered illicit should at least not be considered illicit, and at this hearing they were waiting for the plaintiff’s response regarding this.
He informed the participants of the proceedings that during this time he has negotiated for a project suspended for 1 year, has reached a preliminary agreement, has begun to assume certain obligations, but this situation is unacceptable for the respondent.
After hearing the positions of the parties, the court decided to schedule a hearing in a short period, so that the newly involved prosecutor could familiarize herself with the case materials and express a final position regarding the claim.
The presiding judge set March 31 as the date for the new hearing, contrary to the prosecutor’s observation that during that week there are 3 court hearings scheduled daily, and in terms of time, she physically cannot manage to express a position.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
