Representative of Compulsory Enforcement Service withdrew the claim on bringing a person to administrative responsibility; the proceedings of the case were discontinued
14:17, November 4, 2016 | News, Own news
As already reported, on November 3, 2016, examination of the claim of the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service against Anush Poghosyan was assigned at the RA Administrative Court. The claim required that A. Poghosyan was held liable under Article 206.5 (Willful interference with the performance by enforcement service officer of their duties) of the RA Code of Administrative Offences.
Note that during the previous court hearing of September 26, 2016, defendant’s representative T. Siradeghyan, Lawyer at HCA Vanadzor, motioned to discontinue the proceedings given that the documents with the note “Protocol on administrative offences” drafted on March 31, 2016 and April 20, 2016 did not meet the requirements laid down for protocols on administrative offenses, and claims on bringing a person to administrative responsibility in a court of law were subject to court examination only in case a protocol on administrative offense was drafted during the administrative proceedings and submitted to the court along with the claim. The court postponed the hearing to discuss the motion.
Yesterday, at the next-in-turn court hearing, it became clear that back on October 21, 2016, the representative of the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service filed to the court a note on withdrawing the claim and the proceedings of the case was discontinued on these grounds.
Note that based on the court ruling to secure the claim, the property in A. Poghosyan’s apartment was arrested and later claimant Armen Mkrtchyan filed an application to Avan and Nor-Nork Division of the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service stating that the arrested property was used. Based on this, the completed compulsory enforcement proceedings were resumed, and K. Paronyan, compulsory enforcement officer at Avan and Nor-Nork Division of the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service regularly visited A. Poghosyan’s apartment to verify the arrested property but A. Poghosyan considered his actions unlawful and did not open the door.
The RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service submitted a claim on bringing A. Poghosyan to administrative responsibility for willfully interfering with the performance by a compulsory enforcement service officer of his duties on the grounds that under the resumed compulsory enforcement proceedings, A. Poghosyan, in her status of a debtor, failed to comply with K. Paronyan’s (compulsory enforcement officer at Avan and Nor-Nork Division of the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service) decision on attending the compulsory enforcement actions in her flat and opening its door.