On September 16, the Anticorruption Civil Court resumed the hearing on the case of confiscation of illegally acquired property from Goris Mayor Arush Arushanyan. Judge Lili Drmeyan presides over the proceedings.

According to Iravaban.net, this session focused on discussing a motion to modify the previously imposed measure securing the claim.

The presiding judge announced that on August 27, the plaintiff had submitted a written motion to the court requesting the application of a measure to secure the claim and to modify the existing measure. Of these motions, only the application of the claim security measure has been examined, while today’s hearing was convened to address the modification request.

Regarding the motion, the prosecutor noted that the lawsuit presents a monetary claim amounting to 627,726,013 drams.

He stated that, considering the change in the monetary claim amount and the removal of “Gor Metal” LLC from the list of exempt properties, he requested the modification of the applied claim security measure. The prosecutor asked to impose an arrest on Arush Arushanyan’s properties up to the amount of 627,726,013 drams, excluding the specified residential house in Goris, the specified production facility in Verishen village, and the specified land plot in the same village.

Habet Martirosyan, the respondent’s advocate, stated that in his objection to the motion, he had pointed out the Constitutional Court’s position on this matter.

“Since the necessity and grounds for applying a claim security measure must be clearly justified in the court’s decision, we assert that such necessity and grounds are absent; therefore, a claim security measure cannot be applied,” Martirosyan said.

He emphasized that, according to the Court of Cassation’s assessment, in the case of claim security measures, the balance between public interests and the fundamental rights of private individuals should be determined by considering the type and subject of the security claim, the proposed method of securing the claim, and how suitable and necessary it is for applying the given claim security measure.

The advocate stated that the plaintiff had not justified how suitable and necessary the application of the presented claim security measure is, or whether there is a reasonable correlation between the claim amount and the scope of the undertaken claim security measure. “In our assessment, the presented motion violates the principles of proportionality and moderation. The respondent has never cast doubt on his actions. It is incomprehensible why the plaintiff demands a claim security measure not only for the respondent’s property but also for an entity not party to this case, now recognized as a third party, whose 100% share has been deemed legal. We believe that the plaintiff has exceeded the framework of applying claim security measures as clarified by the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation and is abusing the claim security as a legal mechanism.”

The respondent’s advocate noted that it had not been substantiated how the calculation was presented, and in that case, the claim amount has been “inflated.” He requested the rejection of the motion presented by the prosecutor.

In response to the advocate’s expressed position, the prosecutor asked how the expression “violation of the principle of proportionality” is manifested in this motion. Martirosyan replied that an arrest has been imposed on Arushanyan’s properties, except for his salary, while “Gor Metal” LLC is considered legal on one hand but is also stated to be subject to confiscation on the other. Accordingly, he said that the balance regarding the properties is not maintained.

The company’s balance sheet is known to the prosecutor’s office, including how much property there is, whether the 627 million covers it or not. If 627 million drams covers it, then why is there a need to impose an arrest on Arush Arushanyan’s other properties? The prosecutor’s office has not presented any justification regarding these principles.

Regarding “Gor Metal” LLC, the prosecutor said: “The Civil Code clearly classifies shares as movable property. The claim security measure relates to the new amount of the claim, that is, 300 million plus has been replaced by 627 million drams, and in this respect, it is legitimate for the prosecutor’s office to present a new security motion because a change in the amount has occurred.”

He noted that if the Compulsory Enforcement Service satisfies the claim security motion, when imposing an arrest up to 627 million, it should take into account that Arush Arushanyan also owns the specified movable property – 100% share of “Gor Metal” LLC.

Regarding the expression “inflated,” the prosecutor said to refrain from such characterizations: “It’s natural that advocates defend the respondent’s interests, but that doesn’t mean you should use such characterizations about the claim in court.”

At this point, Habet Martirosyan interrupted the prosecutor, saying that the opinions presented should be considered mutually, and in their assessment, the claim amount is inflated.

After hearing the positions of the parties, the presiding judge announced that a decision on this matter will be made in the form of a separate judicial act and will be sent to the parties tomorrow.

Mariam Shahnazaryan