Recently, I received the decision made on April 15, 2013, in administrative case No. VD/3989/05/02, which is being examined in the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia. The "innovative" approaches enshrined in it, I believe, will surprise any specialist who is somewhat familiar with administrative proceedings.
First, let us note that in the case under discussion, a demand was made to the defendant, the Special Investigative Service of the Republic of Armenia (by means of an enforcement claim), to provide copies of the materials of the criminal case No. 18-45 N/12 (rejected) prepared by the service. During the examination of the case in court, the defendant side, understanding the essence of the demand, essentially did not present any reasonable counterarguments, instead striving in every way to avoid the enforcement claim, and for weeks attempted to transfer documents to the plaintiff side, presumably to fulfill the demand put forward by the claim:
The plaintiff side, exclusively exercising its rights, did not accept the documents provided by the SIS with "unexpected openness" more than four months late, preferring to obtain them based on the judicial act that resolves the case in essence.
However, the court found that the demand presented in this case had been fulfilled by the defendant and decided to consider the demand objectless and reject the presented claim:
At first glance, this assessment, which seems entirely lawful, nevertheless raises questions due to the following circumstances. First and foremost, the court, demonstrating "proper circumspection" and most likely understanding that the mere fact of the SIS sending an envelope to the plaintiff is not sufficient to consider the claim objectless, decided to accept the documents presented by the defendant during the trial phase, guided by legal norms "known only to itself" from the Administrative Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, and moreover, established in the ruling that the copies of the materials requested by the plaintiff had been deposited in the court, allowing the plaintiff to familiarize themselves with them and obtain copies.
In fact, it turns out that the court, by the ruling made, has provided a completely new applicability to the procedural institution of document deposition by accepting the documents that are the subject of the dispute for safekeeping. It turns out that the court ignored the fact that Articles 73 and 77 of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia provide exclusively for the process of depositing extensive documents submitted with the application. I consider it evident that by accepting the required documents during the trial and depositing them, and later considering this circumstance as a basis for rejecting the claim, the court has exceeded its jurisdiction and has allowed a violation of procedural norms.
In addition, I also find the idea of the claim being objectless by the court noteworthy. Let me remind you that the term "objectless" is generally absent in the Administrative Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, therefore it is unclear what criteria the court followed when considering the claim objectless in a case where the demand put forward by the claim had not actually been fulfilled at the time of the ruling.
It inadvertently creates the impression that the court, through its actions, aims to create the factual basis necessary and sufficient to reject the submitted claim.
As for whether the above-mentioned grounds will be sufficient for the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia to annul the ruling, only time will tell...
Lawyer
Aram Varuzhanyan Khachatryan
"AYLEKS" LAW OFFICE