0 8000 12 11

photo by epress.am

On April 27, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by judge K. Avetisyan, started examination of Svetlana Sargsyan v. RA Military Commissariat and RA Ministry of Defense.

Note that by her claim, S. Sargsyan required to annul the interfering administrative act of RA military commissioner H. Muradyan dated May 11, 2015, as well as to compel him to pay her the outstanding military pension amounts paid in cases of losing the breadwinner and to compel him to award her a bonus allowance starting from January 1, 2015. The previous court hearing of this case was adjourned to send notifications to the RA Ministry of Defense involved in the case as a second defendant and the State Social Security Service of the RA Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs involved as a third party.

The pre-trial court hearing of April 27, 2016 was attended by plaintiff Svetlana Sargsyan and her representative, Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor, who submitted to the Court the power of attorney issued by S. Sargsyan in support of the scope of her powers. The court hearing was also attended by Manik Santrosyan, representative of the RA Ministry of Defense.

The Court considered it possible to continue the pre-trial court hearing without the representatives of the other defendant under the case, the RA Military Commissariat, and of the third person, the State Social Security Service of the RA Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, who had been duly notified.

Plaintiff’s representative Т. Siradeghyan presented the grounds and substance of the claim. She stated that they had requested the Court to annul the interfering administrative act of RA military commissioner H. Muradyan dated May 11, 2015, as well as to compel him to pay the plaintiff the outstanding military pension paid in cases of losing the breadwinner due from August 2014 to January 1, 2015 and to compel him to award S. Sargsyan a bonus allowance starting from January 1, 2015. The plaintiff’s representative briefly outlined the factual and legal arguments of the claim noting that S. Sargsyan’s son had left for Nagorno-Karabakh as a volunteer in 1992 and had not returned. Since November 1, 2001, the plaintiff received a pension paid in cases of losing the breadwinner based on the grounds that her son went missing in Artsakh war. However, since August 2014, the payment of the pension was terminated based on the grounds that the reference issued by the Department for Social Protection of Servicemen of the RA Defense Ministry was false; criminal proceedings were initiated. The criminal proceedings were suspended and the fact that the plaintiff’s son had gone missing was established. The plaintiff applied to restore her right to pension paid in cases of losing the breadwinner and requested to pay the pension amount unpaid before. However, the plaintiff received a refusal, and her administrative complaint was not considered. T. Siradeghyan also invoked the legal acts applicable to the case in question.

The defendant, RA Ministry of Defense, did not submit its position to the Court; its representative M. Santrosyan stated that the Ministry also attempted to examine the progress of the case under an out-of-court procedure and considered it necessary to ask the plaintiff’s representative some questions to make a final decision on objecting to the claim or upholding it. She wanted to find out what types of claims were filed to present the second and third claims.

In response to the question, the plaintiff’s representative said that the first claim submitted to the Court was a challenge action, and as for the types of the second and the third claims, the plaintiff party would like to ask the defendant party a question in this regard to find out whether a separate administrative act was adopted to pay the unpaid pension. In response to the question, the defendant’s representative mentioned that the powers of the RA Ministry of Defense were stipulated by law, and besides, she was not competent to decide on behalf of the plaintiff on the type of the claim to be submitted to the Court. Presiding judge K. Avetisyan tried to find out whether pension was paid based on adopting an administrative act or merely by performing an action, if the grounds for terminating the payment of a pension were eliminated. The defendant’s representative stated that without such an issue in practice, she could not provide a precise answer to the question about the procedures for restoring the payment of terminated pension. The responses to the questions of the judge made it clear that the defendant’s representative had no information about initiating administrative proceedings on termination of pension and adopting a relevant administrative act since no such document was attached to the case.

Presiding judge K. Avetisyan requested the defendant’s representative to submit to the Court the administrative act which was made to terminate the pension, as well as to substantiate that the agency adopting such an act possessed relevant competence and that the plaintiff had received the act, to state whether there was an act on terminating the plaintiff’s right to receive pension, whether such act was delivered to its addressee and whether the relevant agency had the necessary competence, as well as to state what happened if after termination of the pension, the person submitted an application to restore the payment of the pension and whether an action was taken or an administrative act was adopted in case of restoration.

The plaintiff’s representative said that the plaintiff had received neither her pension, nor any administrative act on terminating her right to pension and was informed about termination of the pension verbally. Also, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to give her an opportunity to ask the defendant’s representative some questions. In particular, she noted that according to Article 3(1) of the RA Law on Making Amendments to the RA Law on Social Security of Servicemen and their Family Members dated December 1, 2014, “From January 1, 2015, regardless of pensioner’s application, the family members of perished or deceased military servicemen shall be assigned and paid bonus allowance instead of the military pension paid in cases of losing the breadwinner assigned before January 1, 2011.”

She requested the defendant’s representative to say what procedures were applied to transmit the data of the persons receiving social payment from the RA Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs on another grounds. M. Santrosyan stated that by January 1, 2015, the personal files of the persons receiving pensions paid in cases of losing the breadwinner were transmitted to the territorial division of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs.

T. Siradeghyan noted that the invoked Law clearly stipulates that bonus allowance shall be paid instead of the pension assigned before January 1, 2011, submitted to the Court a copy of the Law and requested it to read as well the provision of Law under which the right to receive pension paid in case of losing the breadwinner shall not be reviewed in case of assigning such bonus allowance.

In this regard, the representative of the RA Ministry of Defense stated that if the pension was terminated, it had nothing to do with whether the bonus allowance was assigned or not. She could not either specify the agency which had transmitted the data. The Court also required that the circumstances of the process above were clarified and submitted to the Court.

Hence, the pre-trial court hearing was adjourned and another pre-trial hearing was scheduled for May 25, 2016, at 2:30 pm.

See also: epress.am