0 8000 12 11

On September 26, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by Judge L. Hakobyan, carried on examination of the claim of the RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service against Anush Poghosyan, requiring to bring her to administrative liability for the action under Article 206.5 of the RA Code of Administrative Offences, i.e. on the grounds of deliberately interfering with the compulsory enforcement officer’s duties.

The pre-trial court hearing was attended by Karen Paronyan, representative of plaintiff RA MoJ Compulsory Enforcement Service, Armen Mkrtchyan, person involved in the case as a third person, defendant A. Poghosyan and his representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor.

The Court sought the opinion of the parties on the defendant’s representative’s motion filed at the previous court hearing on removing A. Mkrtchyan as a third person from the list of the parties to the trial. The plaintiff party left the issue to the Court’s discretion.

Defendant’s representative T. Siradeghyan invoked as additional evidence the legal position expressed in the RA Constitutional Court’s ruling № ՍԴՈ-864 dated February 5, 2010, according to which the goal of the administrative responsibility is mostly public in nature; the offender is responsible before the public at large rather than before a private person and the administrative responsibility mostly concerns public rather than private interests.

The Court asked a clarifying question on whether there were any changes in the factual grounds after declaring A. Mkrtchyan a third person. In response to the question, T. Siradeghyan stated that the motion was submitted in compliance with Article 19(8) of the RA Administrative Procedure Code under which the Court may declare a third person as an improper third person also in the cases when originally there were no grounds to involve them as such.

Having considered the motion above, the Court ruled to reject it taking into account the fact that the grounds for involving A. Mkrtchyan as a third person remained unchanged.

Plaintiff’s representative K. Paronyan presented the substance and grounds of the claim.

In response to defendant’s representative T. Siradeghyan’s question, the plaintiff’s representative mentioned that the protocol in the documents attached to the claim was incomplete and submitted to the Court the continuation of the protocol.

Upon looking through the document, T. Siradeghyan stated that the protocol submitted was not the continuation of the previous one as it was complete and signed by the claimant and by compulsory enforcement officers. The plaintiff’s representative mentioned that the question did not concern the substance and grounds of the claim and T. Siradeghyan explained that the claim was submitted to the Court to bring A. Poghosyan to administrative responsibility, which might be based only on a protocol of administrative offense. The plaintiff provided no clear answer to the question.

In terms of the protocol above, T. Siradeghyan submitted a motion on suspending the proceedings and mentioned that the documents drafted on March 31, 2016 and April 20, 2016 and bearing the note “Protocol on administrative offense” did not comply with the requirements on protocols of administrative offense, and claims on bringing a person to administrative responsibility in a court of law should be subject to trial examination only if a protocol on the administrative offense is drafted during the initiated administrative proceedings and if such a protocol is attached to the claim submitted to the court.

Having got familiar with the written text of the motion, the Court ruled to adjourn the hearing and scheduled the next one on November 3, 2016, at 4 pm.