On 4 October, the Anti-Corruption Civil Court held a hearing on the confiscation of assets and funds of allegedly illicit origin of the former Mayor of Yerevan, currently a member of the National Assembly Taron Margaryan and his family members.

According to Iravaban.net , 4 out of 5 representatives of the defendants were against videotaping and photographing the court session. Only Taron Margaryan’s representative Benik Galstyan, stated that he does not object against broadcasting the session, which will ensure the highest threshold of the principle of publicity, taking into account the fact that his client is a politician.

The Presiding Judge Karapet Badalyan granted the petitions of the journalists, noting that the court is not yet at the stage of examining the case in regard of concrete evidence, which may contain data protected by law. “For the protection of such information, with the mediation of lawyers or the court, on its own initiative, will definitely take steps.”
Tiran Abgaryan, the representative of Taron Margaryan’s mother, Susanna Margaryan, told the court that he wants to file a motion to postpone the investigation of the case, because on 27 January of this year, he got acquainted with the statement of claim in the case, the evidence on attached USB flash drive. After that, they submitted an “incomplete” response to the claim. Later, azdarar.am informed that a hearing was scheduled for the case today.

“Until now, neither I nor Susanna Margaryan have received any notification regarding the hearings to be held in this civil case. In addition, my client was not aware of the progress of this case,” the lawyer said, noting that he also found out that no other notices were posted on the azdarar.am website regarding his client.

According to Tiran Abgaryan, Susanna Margaryan cannot be considered sufficiently prepared for the court hearing. The lawyer petitioned to postpone the session on that basis in order to familiarize with the case materials.

Ruzanna Khudaverdyan, the Prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the Prosecutor General’s Office, noted that the petition is subject to be rejected, as both the Prosecutor’s Office and the Court sent the materials, petitions, and writings to Susanna Margaryan’s registered address. “We received those notices back with a notice “not claimed”. As for azdarar.am, the notification remains on the website for a specific period. If you have seen it once after January, it does not mean that there were no other notifications on the site. “You haven’t looked regularly, that is why you saw 4 October.”

The prosecutor emphasized that it is the duty of Susanna Margaryan and her representative to follow what is happening during the case. “If they are aware that there is a court case, it is not acceptable to appear at the court session half a year later and say that we were not aware.”

Representatives of the other respondents joined the motion. The judge decided to reject the petition. “In this case, the court has repeatedly encountered circumstances of unscrupulous use of their rights by lawyers, and this is no exception.”

Karapet Badalyan presented the chronology of the case in the meeting hall. The notices were sent to the address mentioned by Susanna Margaryan, where the respondent received notices earlier.

“Since this issue has been discussed many times in previous court sessions, I will not hesitate to clarify for you once: you, being a lawyer, the Civil Code obliges you to make an effort and find out about the case yourself. If there is no information on the official website, you are obliged to apply to the court in writing to ask, demand, to know when the court session is scheduled,” the chairman noted, adding that according to the Civil Procedure Code, the participant in the trial is obliged to inform the court of his address during the investigation of the case. , about the change of e-mail or other means of electronic communication.

In the absence of such communication, the summons shall be sent to the address or by means of electronic communication by which the party to the proceedings was last notified, and shall be deemed to have been served, even if the addressee has not actually received it.

Karapet Badalyan noted that what is happening is evidence of dishonest use of the rights by the lawyer and is aimed at disrupting the investigation of the case. “If such behavior continues, the court will apply appropriate judicial sanctions.”

After this statement of the judge, Tiran Abgaryan announced that he wants to submit another petition regarding leaving the claim without investigation. The lawyer had already started to present the motion, when Karapet Badalyan interrupted him and asked to present the arguments. “You copied laws, you read the laws. Considering your behavior aimed at delaying the court hearing, there is no need to read the laws. You have copied and read at least 3 pages of laws, you have added a decision of the Supreme Court. The court knows all that, please present your arguments.”

“Respectful Court, my petition consists of legal and factual grounds,” the lawyer said.

“Now I ask you to present your arguments, which refer to the issue of leaving the claim unexamined. You can bring the code and read it completely. The court decides the order of execution of judicial actions. Now I am defining the procedure for submission of petition for you,” the judge answered.

“Honorable court, you are forcing me to present my petition partially.”

“I have established a procedure for the implementation of the judicial action. There is no need to read the legal basis. Copy and paste… there is no need to read all that in court. The court knows the law.”

“Are you forcing me to read only a part of the petition?”

“Yes, I have established an order for the implementation of the judicial action and yes, you are forced to obey the orders of the court.”

Tiran Abgaryan insisted several times that he should publish the petition in its entirety. Responding to this, Karapet Badalyan stated that the court gets the impression that the submission of the petition is an end in itself. “I am giving you that opportunity for the last time (the lawyer was trying to retort). Do not talk simultaneously with me.”

Then the representative of Susanna Margaryan asked to indicate in which part of his motion the factual basis are, which he should present to the court.

“If the motion is submitted by abuse of right, the purpose is to disrupt and delay the investigation of the case, then the court can reject it. Because you do not want to represent… (the lawyer was trying to counter). I am already publishing the decision. Because you do not want to obey court orders… you are speaking parallel to the court, you are not submitting your motion,” the judge said. The lawyer interrupted him, stating that he wanted to comply, but did not know how. “I will try, if I do not make a mistake, I will not break the logic of the mediation.”

Responding to these words, the judge noted that it depends on the lawyer’s professional abilities.

According to Tiran Abgaryan, pursuant to the legislation, the lawsuit is filed by the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the Prosecutor General’s Office, and on which behalf only the head of the department has the right to speak, and not the prosecutor.

“The claim, and then the motion to allow the change of the basis and subject of the claim in the case, were signed and submitted by the prosecutor of the department, Khudaverdyan, who is not the head of the responsible department defined by the Law “On Confiscation of Property of Illegal Origin”, does not have the power of attorney issued by the authority or a person holding a higher position. This case was initiated by a person who does not have such authority,” the lawyer insisted.

Prosecutor Ruzanna Khudaverdyan stated in response that the lawsuit is filed on behalf of the Prosecutor General’s Office, on behalf of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin, which is the competent authority. “And I, by the order of the Prosecutor General, am the prosecutor of that department, therefore, there is no problem here, it is not stipulated that the claim should be submitted on behalf of the head of the department.”

Another representative of the defendants, Zhenya Minasyan, informed the court that her petition also refers to leaving the claim without examination, refers to the powers of the prosecutor, but with other justifications. According to the lawyer, in case of acting on behalf of the state body, the representative of the body must provide a power of attorney, which the prosecutor did not present in the case.

The other representatives of the respondents also joined these motions of the lawyers. The court rejected these 2 motions as well.

Further 2 of the lawyers submitted motions to postpone the session. One was related to being overburdened with another case, which the judge rejected, and in the other case, the problem was related to the health condition of the representative’s young child. The court granted the 2nd petition.

The next court hearing was scheduled for 7 November.

Details in the video

Yevgenya Hambardzumyan