0 8000 12 11

On November 22, 2016, the General Jurisdiction Court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, presided by judge D. Grigoryan, examined Anush Poghosyan’s complaint against S. Avetisyan’s, Investigator for High-Profile Cases at the RA Special Investigation Service, decree on initiating no criminal prosecution and discontinuing criminal proceedings of August 12, 2016.

Note that on April 4, 2016, the RA Special Investigation Service initiated criminal proceedings under Article 309(1) of the RA Criminal Code on alleged elements of crime of abuse of power by the officers of Avan and Nor-Nork Department of the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service.

The court hearing was attended by plaintiff A. Poghosyan, her representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, Lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor, and Sashik Avetisyan, Investigator for High-Profile Cases at the RA Special Investigation Service, responsible for the investigation.

Having verified the identities of the Parties and making sure that there were no challenge motions, the Court passed to the examination of the complaint.

When presenting the grounds of the complaint, A. Poghosyan’s representative brought arguments on the availability of the elements of crime under Article 309 of the RA Criminal Code in the action of the officers at Avan and Nor-Nork Department of the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service and on the availability of the criminal attempt in their actions and the action of claimant Armen Mkrtchyan under Article 147 of the RA Criminal Code. In particular, T. Siradeghyan substantiated the facts that the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service officers’ activities were based solely on the enforcement order issued based on the legally effective judicial act, and after ensuring the compulsory enforcement of a judicial act, the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service is not authorized by the RA law regulating its activities to fulfill any other function, including the competence to check the use of the arrested property; therefore, in this case, there were no legal grounds for such an action even despite A. Mkrtchyan’s application.

Referring to senior enforcement officer K. Paronyan’s competence to resume under Article 39(2) of the RA Law on Compulsory Enforcement of Judicial Acts the enforcement proceedings completed under Article 41(5)(2) of the said Law, A. Poghosyan’s representative provided arguments on abuse of power in this regard as well. T. Siradeghyan noted that K. Paronyan, senior enforcement officer at Avan and Nor-Nork Department of the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service, when guided by the provisions of resuming the enforcement proceedings already completed by him, realized that this action was beyond the scope of its powers and was a publicly dangerous act.

The complaint also covered arguments on the elements of crime of attempted violation of A. Poghosyan’s right to privacy of home in the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service officers’ and A. Mkrtchyan’s actions. T. Siradeghyan noted that according to the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service officers’ testimonies, they did not enter the apartment as its door was locked from inside; it follows that if A. Poghosyan’s neighbors, who were not the owners of the apartment, opened the door, the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service officers, aware that the apartment was owned by A. Poghosyan, would have taken the action for which they had visited the apartment.

Upon presenting the other violations by the investigating body as well, victim A. Poghosyan’s representative requested the Court to compel S. Avetisyan, Investigator for High-Profile Cases at the RA Special Investigation Service, to stop violation of the rights and freedoms of A. Poghosyan, victim under the criminal case.

The Court presented the documents attached to the complaint, after which S. Avetisyan, Investigator for High-Profile Cases at the RA Special Investigation Service, responsible for the investigation, presented his objections to the complaint. According to him, the complaint was not well-grounded and was subject to rejection. In particular, S. Avetisyan noted that the notion of check-up is a relative category and did not concern checking the activities of the economic entity but rather checking the circumstance mentioned in claimant A. Mkrtchyan’s motion, i.e. the circumstance of whether the property under court arrest was used. The investigating body mentioned that according to Article 18 of the RA Law on Judicial Acts Compulsory Enforcement Service, compulsory enforcement officer should be entitled to receive under the prescribed procedure necessary information and materials to perform his/her official duties, and the fact of completing the enforcement proceedings did not mean in itself that the requirements in the court’s enforcement order were fully met, and therefore, some processes might be conducted in this field. S. Avetisyan, Investigator for High-Profile Cases at the RA Special Investigation Service, referred to the provision in Article 10 of the RA Law on the Principles of Administration and Administrative Proceedings that the data provided by a person on the factual circumstances considered by the administrative body should be deemed reliable in all cases unless the administrative body proves otherwise. In this case, despite the completed enforcement proceedings, the visit was conducted based on the claimant’s motion to establish the truthfulness of the circumstances mentioned therein. Besides, he noted that the plaintiff party did not mention which of A. Poghosyan’s rights was violated by visiting her apartment. The investigating body also stated that the preliminary investigation substantiated that no one entered A. Poghosyan’s apartment and requested the Court to reject the complaint.

The Court asked the plaintiff party how the criminal attempt to violate the privacy of home was manifested; A. Poghosyan and T. Siradeghyan noted that given the lack of any legal grounds, and the purpose to check the arrested property in A. Poghosyan’s apartment, the person’s rights were violated; moreover, the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service officers mentioned in their testimonies that they did not enter the apartment as it was locked from inside.

Due to the Court’s overload with other hearings, the examination of the complaint was postponed till December 13, 2016, 11 am.