Since 2022, the Constitutional Court has been examining the constitutionality of the Law “On Confiscation of Illicitly Acquired Property”. The case was subsequently referred to the Venice Commission, which provided a series of observations.
In its opinion, the Commission noted that international and European standards suggest civil confiscation can serve as an effective tool in combating corruption and deterring illicit asset acquisition in society. This represents a public interest that may justify applying a presumption of illicit origin for certain assets.
“…Such a presumption shifts the burden of proof to the asset owner: the competent authority must demonstrate that the assets may have an illicit origin, while the respondent can refute these claims by presenting contradictory evidence.
However, this tool should be applied within reasonable limits and accompanied by effective procedural safeguards. As long as the property owner has a genuine opportunity to rebut the presumption and can present ‘inaccessible evidence’ or a bona fide defense of property rights, the decision appears proportionate. It would be beneficial to further clarify the standard of proof applied in such cases within the context of the law,” the Commission stated.
According to the Venice Commission’s position, the retroactive application of the law can generally be considered proportionate and compatible with the Armenian Constitution, which protects property only if it has been lawfully acquired.
“…Concurrently, the obligation to provide explanations about the origin of property should remain reasonable. Moreover, the timeframes for property confiscation should be reasonable and applied uniformly to all cases, rather than left to the authorities’ discretion,” the opinion concludes.
In 2023, the Constitutional Court addressed 21 questions to the Prosecutor’s Office within the framework of this issue. After receiving responses to these questions in the same year, the case was suspended and is currently ongoing. The rapporteur for this case is Constitutional Court Judge Vahe Grigoryan.
In an interview with Iravaban.net, advocate Armen Melkumyan stated: “At present, with the case suspended and without a final decision from the Constitutional Court regarding this law, we have interpretations of the decision provided by various advocates and judges, which are unacceptable to one side and incomprehensible to the other.”
According to their assessment, the law should have included an exemption for individuals who conduct their activities outside the borders of Armenia.
For more details, please refer to the video.
