On 1 April, the Anti-Corruption Court held a hearing on the confiscation of property of illicit origin of 2nd President of the Republic of Armenia Robert Kocharyan and his affiliates. Presiding Judge Narine Avagyan.
The Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Armenia filed a lawsuit against Robert Kocharyan and his wife Bella Kocharyan, daughter Gayane Kocharyan, her husband Vigen Chatinyan, two sons Levon and Sedrak Kocharyan, their wives singer Sirusho (Siranush Kocharyan) and Zaruhi Badalyan.
According to Iravaban.net, prosecutor Hamlet Harutyunyan joined the court case and presented the relevant power of attorney to the court. The judge told Armen Feroyan that the previous court session was postponed so that he could state his position on the motion to allow the change of the basis of lawsuit.
Feroyan mentioned that he did not manage to get acquainted with the materials of the case completely, but he has some questions for the representative of the plaintiff side.
Lawyer Harutyun Harutyunyan said that he has a motion to submit and demands to examine it earlier. The motion concerned the application of the statute of limitations on part of the existing claim.
Public Prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan expressed his position, noting that at this stage, based on procedural expediency, the petition should not be discussed, it can be discussed at later stages, regardless of whether it will be approved or not.
“As for the statute of limitations, how could the statute of limitations be presented during the four preliminary court hearings held so far? I think there is no obstacle for it to be presented during the subsequent hearings as well,” Gevorg Kocharyan said.
Hamlet Harutyunyan mentioned that the statute of limitations petition is a type of petition that, when discussing it, all actions must be stopped.
“At today’s session, when your colleague had to present a position in order to resolve this issue, you decided to present the petition at this very session, at this very stage. Is this aimed at delaying the consideration of the petition submitted by us?” the Prosecutor emphasized.
Based on the efficiency of the case, the court found that the discussion of the petition, which started two sessions ago, should be continued in this court session, it refers to the change of the basis of the subject of the claim. At the same time, the court reminded the parties that they should use their rights and fulfill their duties conscientiously.
The judge told Armen Feroyan: “The court merely provided you opportunity to state your position, but currently, in this case, you had to appear prepared.”
In response Armen Feroyan mentioned that time should have been allocated for this.
In particular, he emphasized: “I request that the representatives of the claimant party fully present and specifically state the facts that differ from the original claim submitted with these amendments. The defendant believes that the approach where there were defects in the original claim, but there are no defects in the amendments, is an abuse of rights.”
The judge noted that that stage has already passed; it has been presented; and now the time to state his position has expired. Armen Feroyan said that it is obvious to him that the court has a prejudiced attitude towards the defendant. He asked to provide time to submit a challenge.
In response to the request to provide time to challenge, the judge stated that since there is no written petition, the court cannot consider it.
“I object to the amendment of the submitted claim, I find that it is an obvious abuse of rights. The position of the court is incomprehensible to me, when the plaintiff side decides what it wants, and presents what it wants. It is not like that, there is a norm in the Civil Procedure Code, if we are dealing with abuse of rights, then this motion should not be discussed at all. It is groundless, subject to rejection,” Armen Feroyan said.
After listening to the positions of the representatives of the defendant, the plaintiff’s representative, Gevorg Kocharyan said that it is their right to apply to the court to allow a motion to change the subject of the case in accordance with the relevant article of the Civil Procedure Code, and the court should resolve this issue based on the assessment of only three circumstances.
The discussion of the petition completed, the judicial act will be published and sent to the parties.
The next court hearing will be held on 6 May.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
