The Anticorruption Civil Court today, March 11, held a court session under the chairmanship of Judge Rudolf Avagyan on the case of confiscation of allegedly illegally acquired property from the former head of the Judicial Acts Compulsory Enforcement Service, former MP Mihran Poghosyan and 7 persons associated with him. It should be noted that the respondent’s representatives have completely objected to the video recording of this and other sessions.
According to Iravaban.net, at this session, the plaintiff’s representative, Prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property, Tigran Yenoqyan, expressed his position regarding the motion submitted by the respondent’s representatives at the session held on February 26. In the motion, the respondent’s side requested an expedited trial procedure for the case.
According to the prosecutor, the submitted motion is unfounded on the grounds that constitutional regulations have authorized the competent authority to file a lawsuit in court for the protection of state interests.
He particularly referred to the relevant regulations of Article 176 of the Constitution, according to which part 3, the prosecutor’s office may, in exceptional cases and manner, file a lawsuit in court for the protection of state interests. He noted that according to the regulations provided for in part 3 of Article 20 of the Law “On Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property,” the plaintiff in the proceedings for the confiscation of illegally acquired property is the General Prosecutor’s Office: “According to the appellant’s claim, the General Prosecutor’s Office is not authorized to act as a plaintiff in such lawsuits, taking into account the mission assigned to the prosecutor’s office by the Constitution – to act exclusively for the protection of the state’s property interests, and determining the legality of property acquisition is not part of the constitutional legal authorities.”
Arthur Hovhannisyan, the representative of respondent Gagik Badalyan, asked the prosecutor where the state interest appears for filing such a lawsuit and how it is explained in the position. Yenoqyan said that it was presented in the written document on the protection of state interest: “I again note that the state interest is always to remove illegal assets from circulation, that is, if there have been illegal assets at some stage, the state interest is precisely that they should be removed from circulation.”
Aram Orbelyan, the representative of respondent Mihran Poghosyan, said that the court can consider the case if the parties have a legal interest. He said that the law has given the prosecutor’s office the right to file such a lawsuit, and this can take place if, in addition to having such authority by law, there is also a basis provided for by Article 3 of the Civil Code.
“We are not talking about the public interest, within which the person’s right to property should be limited or at least questioned, but the claim is the following – when the prosecutor’s office files a lawsuit under the Law ‘On Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property,’ under point 4 of the first part of Article 29 of the Law ‘On the Prosecutor’s Office,’ the mere fact that it is within the framework of that law is not sufficient,” said the advocate. Here, according to the latter’s observation, there is a lack of legal interest, and the state, represented by the competent authority, can apply to the court if this circumstance exists.
The respondent’s representative stated that they take the position that in the context of protecting state interests, the applicant must prove that they want to deal with the protection of any right of the state established by contract or laws.
Insisting on his position, the prosecutor reminded the party that the motion was made on the grounds that the lawsuit was filed by an improper plaintiff: “Now we have proven that the plaintiff is proper, this is evidenced by both the Constitution and the Law ‘On the Prosecutor’s Office,’ moreover, according to Article 288.1 of the Civil Code, illegally acquired property is confiscated by a court decision in the manner prescribed by the RA Law ‘On Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property.'”
Presiding Judge Rudolf Avagyan on the protection of state interests, filing a lawsuit legitimacy, addressed several questions to obtain the respondent’s position regarding the plaintiff’s right to apply to court.
The respondent’s side again noted that the competent authority in this lawsuit has not presented which legal interest forms the basis of the lawsuit and which right established by law it wants to protect. Contrary to the respondent’s representative’s position that it is necessary to make a decision in the form of a separate judicial act and not through a session, the court stated that there is no need to make a decision in the form of a separate judicial act.
After hearing the positions of the parties and noting the legal grounds for the decision, the court rejected the respondent’s motion regarding the application of an expedited trial procedure, emphasizing that there is no situation where the lawsuit is filed by an improper plaintiff.
The respondent’s side requested to postpone the examination of the case for a short period to present additional analysis and objections. The session was postponed, the next one will take place on April 9.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
