0 8000 12 11

On November 14, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by judge K. Avetisyan, resumed examination of the case Svetlana Sargsyan v. RA Military Registration and Enlistment Office and RA Defense Ministry. Note that the previous pre-trial court hearing on this case was postponed by the Court’s ruling based on the fact that the Court compelled defendant RA Military Registration and Enlistment Office to provide evidence.

The pre-trial court hearing of November 14, 2016 was attended by plaintiff S. Sargsyan’s representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor, Manik Santrosyan, representative of the RA Defense Ministry and N. Barseghyan, representative of the RA Military Registration and Enlistment Office and Head of its relevant division. The representative of the State Social Security Service of RA Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, involved in the case as a third party, did not attend the court hearing despite of proper notification of its date and time and therefore, the court hearing was resumed in her absence.

The Court noted that on October 25, 2016 it ruled to require evidence and at the same time asked some questions in a letter. The representative of the RA Military Registration and Enlistment Office said that the proceedings materials were sent by postal delivery on November 8, 2016 and at the same time submitted to the Court a copy of the letter.

Upon examining the letter, the Court asked some questions the representative of the RA Military Registration and Enlistment Office. In response, the latter said that in this case, first S. Sargsyan’s right to pension was terminated verbally and on that basis its payment was terminated as well; S. Sargsyan was not informed of it. He clarified that the right to pension was terminated due to the lack of a relevant reference noting that the reference that R. Mkhitaryan was missing provided no grounds for assuming that he took part in combat operations.

Taking into account the information provided by the defendant as well as the fact that the party submitted the administrative proceedings materials by post and they had not been received by the Court yet, the Court proposed holding another pre-trial court hearing to specify the substance and grounds of the plaintiff’s claim. T. Siradeghyan noted that she found it necessary to postpone the court hearing so that the plaintiff party might specify the substance of the claim and its grounds, as necessary.

The parties did not object to postponing the court hearing. Thus, the pre-trial court hearing on this case was postponed and another pre-trial court hearing was scheduled for December 12, 2016, at 12 pm.