Compulsory Enforcement Service representatives considered the appeal ill-founded and lacking sufficient grounds
12:25, March 10, 2017 | News, Own news
On March 9, 2017, the RA Court of Criminal Appeals, presided by judge M. Petrosyan, resumed examination of the appeal of Anush Poghosyan against the judicial act by the General Jurisdiction Court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan city, RA, as a result of verifying the lawfulness of the RA Special Investigation Service investigator for high-profile cases S. Avetisyan’s decree on not initiating criminal prosecution and discontinuing criminal proceedings.
The court hearing was attended by A. Poghosyan, her representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor, and 4 officers of Avan and Nor-Nork Division of the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service, notified by the Court as interested persons
First, the Court sought A. Poghosyan’s position on the appeal. She said that she agreed to the submitted appeal protest, and in response to the Court’s questions said that the considered illegal both the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service officers’ visit to the apartment based on the application, and their actions to resume the completed enforcement proceedings.
The position of the interested persons involved in the case was expressed by H. Tonoyan, Deputy Head of Avan and Nor-Nork Division of the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service. He noted that they considered the lower court’s judicial act well-grounded as the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service was entitled to verify the fact of whether the deposited property was used. According to H. Tonoyan, the appeal was obviously ill-founded and subject to rejection on the grounds that it had no mention of any judicial error by the lower court and victim’s violated rights. H. Tonoyan noted that the Court might not annul an essentially correct judicial act and therefore asked the Court to uphold the appealed ruling.
In response to the judge’s question, senior enforcement officer K. Paronyan said that the enforcement proceedings were resumed based on the claimant’s application, which was permitted by law.
Enforcement officers M. Koganyan and E. Yeghiazaryan agreed with those positions and noted that they had not entered the apartment during their visit.
The Court gave the plaintiff party an opportunity to make a statement. T. Siradeghyan noted that the interested persons had not mentioned any law permitting to resume completed enforcement proceedings. She cited the provision of the RA Law on Compulsory Enforcement of Judicial Acts under which only suspended enforcement proceedings might be resumed.
Due to the Court’s overloaded workload, the court hearing was postponed till March 14, 2017, 1 pm.