"Olimp" Production Cooperative, owner of the Milano store, had applied to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was considered on February 10 at the Court of Appeal (Chairman - N.Barseghyan, judges -  N.Hovsepyan, A.Mkrtchyan).

"Olimp" demands to overturn the verdict of the General Jurisdiction Court of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative regions of October 6, 2010. Under that verdict, the right of ownership of the area of the Milano store belonging to "Olimp" (at the address of Abovyan str. 4, Yerevan) is registered at the name of "Avo F.M.H." Ltd. Earlier, in 2007, the same area was recognized "a public priority interest".  

Neither the owner of the area - "Olimp" Production Cooperative, nor the RA State Cadastre Committee were present at the hearing of the "Avo F.M.H." Ltd. claim at the first instance court on recognizing the right of ownership.  According to the "Olimp" Production Cooperative attorney Haik Alumyan, his client's rights have been grossly violated since he was not made part of the consideration of the case directly relating to him.  

"As a result, Article 6(1) of the Convention was violated. "Avo F.M.H." Ltd. took part in the trial, presented proves, made explanations and substantiations, expressed its opinion and presented solicitations to the court whereas the cooperative had no chance to make use of all its judicial rights," "Olimp" cooperative appeal reads.

Haik Alumyan also emphasizes the fact that until now "Olimp" cooperative was not given the preliminary adequate compensation for taking the property for public priority interest guaranteed by the RA Constitution.

The representative of "Avo F.M.H." Ltd. who was duly informed was not present at the hearing so the consideration of the case proceeded without the defendant. The Appeals Court will publish the verdict on the appeal on February 18 at 04:30 PM. 

After the hearing ended, Alumyan made additional explanations. "The defendant can allow itself not to come to the trial in two cases: first, if the result of the trial is not essential for it, but this is not the case because serious property matters are being considered; second, if it predicts what the trial will end with. I believe this is the second case," this is how Alumyan explained the absence of the representative of "Avo F.M.H." Ltd. 

He said this was another case of violating his client's rights. Taking into account their experience, he is not sure that their appeal will be satisfied. "The person who gave the order must be very influential. Courts must have difficulties in not complying with that order," Alumyan speculates. The next step will be applying to the Court of Cassation, then the European Court of Human Rights. It is desirable for the attorney that all problems be solved in Armenian and not European courts so that prestige of our country does not suffer.   

Mery Alexanyan

Source: www.hra.am