0 8000 12 11

As the HCA Vanadzor has already informed, it assumes the protection of Rustam Ghazaryan’s violated rights who was registered at narcological medical facilities in violation of relevant procedures. R. Ghazaryan and his legal representative, HCA Vanadzor Yerevan Office lawyer Tatevik Siradeghyan filed a claim with the General Jurisdiction Court of RA Yerevan Avan and Nor Nork administrative districts to restore R. Ghazaryan’s violated rights by requiring to remove the records and registration of Rustam Gazaryan as a drug user at the RA Ministry of Health (MoH) Republican Narcological Center CJSC. However, the Court returned the claim above on the pretext that it failed to comply with the claim form and content requirements; particularly, under Article 87(2)(5) of the RA Civil Procedure Code, statements of claim shall contain the evidence in support of the claims therein. The Court found that while the plaintiff attached some documents to the claim, the Court could not consider them as supporting evidence since such documents were copies rather than originals or duly certified copies.

R. Ghazaryan and his representative T. Siradeghyan appealed the court interim ruling above to the RA Civil Court of Appeals arguing that the court misinterpreted the provisions of Article 87, RA Civil Procedure Code. While the Code above indeed states that claims shall contain supporting evidence, the plaintiffs are not bound to attach such evidence, and according to the RA Law on Legal Acts, legal acts shall be interpreted in the literal meaning of words and phrases therein. Also, the appeal contains grounds that the court essentially examined and assessed the evidence, whereas such procedural actions may be taken only while making the final judicial act. R. Ghazaryan and T. Siradeghyan requested the Civil Court of Appeals to annul the ruling on returning the claim. Upon considering the appeal, on July 30, 2015, the Civil Court of Appeals ruled to uphold it and found that the general jurisdiction court had misinterpreted Article 87(2)(5) of the RA Civil Procedure Code, noting that its arguments might serve a basis to either uphold or dismiss the claim upon making a judicial act resulted from its thorough examination, rather than to return the claim. As for attaching evidence in support of the claim, it is the plaintiff’s right rather than duty to attach the evidence in form of original or duly certified copies. Hence, the RA Civil Court of Appeal considered reasonable the argument that the court of general jurisdiction should have admitted the claim and found the arguments in the appeal concerning violated procedural law regulations to be reasonable and sufficient to annul the judicial act above.