User:Judicial system of Armenia/sandbox

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN ARMENIA

The jurisdiction of the Court of first instance is defined by the Judicial Code of the Republic of Armenia by the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Armenia.

The Court of Cassation, the Courts of Appeal, the Courts of General Jurisdiction of the First Instance, as well as the Specialized Courts exist in the Republic of Armenia.

The Courts of First Instance are:

1) Courts of General Jurisdiction;

2) Specialized Courts;

The Specialized Courts are:

1) the Administrative Court;

2) the Bankruptcy Court

The Court of First Instance examines all cases subject to judicial review, except for cases reserved for the jurisdiction of specialized courts.

In the Court of  First Instance, the case is heard by judges of civil or criminal specialization.

In the Court of First Instance, criminal cases and cases related to the execution of a sentence shall be examined only by a criminal specialization judge. Other cases within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance shall be heard by a civil specialization judge.

The Supreme Judicial Council may select judges from civil-criminal specialization, who, in addition to the relevant cases, hear certain types of cases (juveniles, return of illegally transferred children to the Republic of Armenia, confiscation of property of illegal origin, etc.).

The list of individual cases, the number of judges hearing such cases for each court, and the procedure for selection shall be established by the Supreme Judicial Council.

The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance is the territory of the city of Yerevan, region or marzes of the Republic of Armenia respectively.

Cases envisaged by the Administrative Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia are subject to the Administrative Court.

TYPES OF CIVIL CASES

Civil cases are subject to examination in the Court of First Instance, except for the cases provided by the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Bankruptcy.

All cases related to a dispute over a right are considered civil, except for cases within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Court) or the Constitutional Court.

Other cases reserved for the jurisdiction of courts by the RA Civil Procedure Code and other laws are also subject to court examination.

The notion of "civil case", in addition to general civil cases, includes:

- family affairs,

- Cases on the return of a child illegally transferred to the Republic of Armenia or illegally detained in the Republic of Armenia,

- labor dispute cases,

- cases with corporate disputes,

- Cases on appeals against the decisions of the Central Bank of the Republic of Armenia - insolvent bank, credit organization, investment company, investment fund manager, insurance company, temporary administration,

- Cases on the defense decision envisaged by the Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence, Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence, and Restoration of Family Solidarity;

- cases on confirmation of facts of legal significance,

- on recognizing the movable property as ownerless, recognizing the applicant's property right over it,

- cases on recognition of a fully capacitated juveniles (emancipation),

- cases on declaring an individual incapacitated or partially capacitated, declaring an individual declared incapacitated capacitated, or eliminating restrictions on the capacity of an individual,

- cases on declaring an individual missing or dead,

- cases related to the adoption of a child,

- cases of involuntary hospitalization of an individual in a psychiatric organization,

- cases of involuntary medical examination and (or) treatment of a citizen,

- cases on restoration of the right certified by the representative or the lost security by the order,

- cases on review of the court decision on the basis of the conciliation agreement of the parties upon the application of the compulsory executor,

- Cases on approving an out-of-court settlement agreement with the participation of a licensed mediator,

- cases on issuing payment orders,

- cases on disputing the arbitral award, issuing a writ of execution for the compulsory execution of the arbitral award, recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, providing judicial assistance to the arbitration,

- cases on annulment of the arbitral award,

- Cases on issuing a writ of execution for the compulsory execution of the arbitral award,

- cases on recognizing or enforcing a foreign arbitral award,

- cases of judicial assistance to arbitration,

- cases on annulment of the decision of the financial system mediator on issuing a writ of execution for the compulsory execution of the decision of the financial system mediator,

- cases on the issuance of a writ of execution for the compulsory execution of the decision of the financial system mediator, which has become obligatory for the parties,

- cases on recognition of foreign judicial acts and permitting enforcement.

REASONABLE TIME FOR CASE INVESTIGATION

The hearing of the case and the solution must be carried out within a reasonable time.

In determining the reasonableness of the length of the trial, the following shall be taken into account:

1) the circumstances of the case, including the legal-factual complexity, the conduct of the participants in the proceedings; the consequences of the local examination of the case for the participant in the proceedings;

2) the actions taken by the court to carry out the examination and settlement of the case as soon as possible and their effectiveness;

3) the general duration of the examination of the case;

4) The average guideline for the examination of the case defined by the Supreme Judicial Council.

If a special period is set by law for the resolution of the case, it must be examined and resolved within that period. Extension of such term shall be permitted only in cases prescribed by law.

The Supreme Judicial Council which is the guarantor of the independence of the courts, in 30-08-2021 has issued a decision, by which the guidelines for the average length of the examination of cases, according to the specific types of cases and complexity were set.

The purpose of the decision is to ensure the timely hearing of court cases, the accountability of courts, the predictability of the length of the trial.

The level of complexity of the case was taken into account when setting the guidelines for the average length of the case.

The case is of the level of complexity: simple, medium complexity, complex and special complexity.

According to the mentioned decision, the criterion of legal complexity is determined by the peculiarities of the norms of law and institutions to be applied.

The case can have the following coefficients according to the criterion of legal complexity:

A) simple degree of complication

B) medium complication

C) high degree of complexity

D) higher degree of complexity

The criterion for the complexity of the case is determined by the extent to which the necessary judicial action is taken, the circumstances which inevitably extend the length of the examination of the case.

The guideline period for trial in the courts of first instance of the Republic of Armenia is 18 months.

The guideline period of the trial in the RA Administrative Court of Appeal is 9 months.

The guideline period of the trial in the RA Criminal Court of Appeal is 3 months.

The guideline period of the trial in the RA Court of Cassation is 15 months.

The process of observing the guidelines for the examination of cases defined by this decision is subject to monitoring, as a result of which they can be reviewed.

Public works can vary from public relations, business in the country, etc. at different times. The recent civil cases in the Republic of Armenia are connected with the compensation of the damage caused to the honor and dignity. Moreover, the peculiarity of the mentioned cases is that there are several measures of responsibility that can be applied  jointly and each separately.

Of the above-mentioned cases, its peculiarity has Khachaturov vs. Grigoryan case, that entered into its officially force and the obligations defined were fulfilled.

Case study- Yuri Khachaturov vs. Stepan Grigoryan

Yuri Khachaturov on August 10, 2018 filed a lawsuit with the Court of General Jurisdiction of the city of Yerevan (hereinafter referred to as the Court) against Stepan Grigoryan on the demand to oblige him to pay compensation for the damage caused to his honor and dignity.

Applying to the Court, the plaintiff stated that in 2018 on July 30 on the website of "A1 +" TV company ( https://www.alplus.am/1634964.html ), as well as on the YouTube channel belonging to the latter ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GxTBpcFvjw&t=707s ) An interview and video with Stepan Grigoryan was published, which later spread to other websites, particularly Facebook pages.

He found that on 30.07.2018 The following factual information presented publicly during the broadcast interview, which presents the plaintiff as a criminal, accusing him of high treason, which does not correspond to reality; that factual information tarnishes the honor and dignity of the plaintiff. Based on the above, according to Articles 19, 1087.1 of the RA Civil Code, he found that during the interview broadcast by "A1 +" TV channel, Stepan Grigoryan slandered Yuri Khachaturov’s honor, dignity, therefore, guided by the RA Constitution 61, According to Articles 17, 19, 1087.1 of the RA Civil Code, Article 3 of the RA Civil Procedure Code asked the Court to:

a) oblige Stepan Grigoryan to hold a press conference within a month after the court decision enters into legal force; to deny the false factual information about Yuri Khachaturov by posting the video of the press conference on Stepan Grigoryan's Facebook page.

b) To oblige Stepan Grigoryan to pay 2,000,000 AMD as compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to his honor and dignity as a result of defamation.

c)Stepan Grigoryan to confiscate the amount of the paid state fee and the amount of the lawyer's expenses  in favor of Yuri Khachaturov.

The respondent submitted  that the respondent's speech was not a statement of facts, and the mentioned concern is not substantial, it was based on certain factual circumstances, which were published earlier, and in order to verify its authenticity, the Respondent, in his words, applied to the relevant authorities of the National Security Service.

In the context of the above, assessing the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's objections, the court came to the conclusion that the defendant's statement, even in the light of opinion, is not based on sufficient factual content, as the defendant's statement is clear, without any doubts.

Moreover, the respondent does not mention in his speech any factual basis on which his judgments are built, besides, the expression made at the end of the respondent's speech gives grounds to conclude in the context of the general speech that the respondent is confident in his words;

In addition, the documents submitted by the respondent during the trial do not contain any facts that could give the respondent the grounds to make the above statements, as they do not contain information about the specific plaintiff handing over territories for profit, forbidding the opponent to resist, and not returning to his office.

Assessing the respondent's speech, even from the point of view of being conditioned by the overriding public interest, the court found that the respondent did not prove that he had taken reasonable measures to find out the truth of justification of his statement.

Based on the above, the Court first held that the respondent provided factual information about the plaintiff, which contained specific, clear information about certain actions / handing over territories for money, not allowing the enemy to resist / և inaction / not being present during the war, his official responsibilities were not abstract, and it is obvious that the word is addressed to the plaintiff directly, because at the beginning, middle and end of the word the plaintiff's last name is given, and the ordinary listener will feel that the given phrases are actually addressed to the plaintiff.

The court also found that the factual data were presented in public, as the interview was published on the website of "A1 +" TV, as well as on its YouTube channel, ie through the mass media, which fact is indisputable.

Referring to the next two criteria for assessing defamatory data, the court finds that the submitted factual data did not correspond to reality,  they were false, unfounded, unreliable, as the respondent did not present facts to the contrary, in fact the submitted data was distorted. The plaintiff's honor and dignity, as the expressions, in their nature and in the context of the whole content of the article, contained information about the plaintiff's misconduct, treason, which, according to members of the public, degrades the plaintiff's public dignity. makes the plaintiff ashamed or other people avoid the plaintiff.

Based on the above, taking into account the fact that in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, in case of defamation there is a possibility to apply other means of restoration of rights, the Court found that as a measure of liability for defamation it is sufficient to publish a rebuttal. After a month, in the pavilion of "A1 +" TV, to publicly deny In an interview published on YouTube, the following factual information about the plaintiff, which is considered to be a slander, such as "handing over the territories for money, not allowing the enemy to resist, not being present during the war, not fulfilling his official duties" was posted on Stepan Grigoryan's Facebook page. The video of denial will not yield in terms of location and broadcast time. The video of the interview published on the website of "A1 +" TV on July 30.

The verdict was not appealed, it entered into legal force and Stepan Grigoryan published a denial.

https://lurer.com/?p=409936&l=am

References[edit]
“Constitutional law of the Republic of Armenia”

https://www.arlis.am/DocumentView.aspx?DocID=157259

Decision made by Supreme Judicial Concil”

https://court.am/storage/uploads/files/bdx-decisions/6RWmcd70J72Vw4rTAPPNDgutJWkYw6ZhhWXxWfg6.pdf

Republic of Armenia “Code of civil procedure”

https://www.arlis.am/DocumentView.aspx?DocID=157257

“Decision of Court of Republic of Armenia” (Yuri Khachaturov vs. Stepan Grigoryan)

Chttp://www.datalex.am/?app=AppCaseSearch