MAYOR OF YEREVAN

DECISION

RA, 0015, Yerevan, Argishti 1
№____________ " " 2026

ON REJECTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT

1. Description of the issue resolved by the decision:

Based on the complaint N D-77561-26 dated July 24, 2026, of Artur Hovhannisyan, representative of Arsen Mkrtchyan, addressed to the Yerevan Municipality, a review of the complaint was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings".

Within the framework of the review of complaint N D-77561-26 dated July 24, 2026, hearings were convened on August 6, 2026, which were attended by Artur Hovhannisyan and Harutyun Hayrapetyan, representatives of Arsen Mkrtchyan.

Having examined complaint N D-77561-26 dated July 24, 2026, the minutes of August 6, 2026, regarding the hearings conducted within the framework of the administration, and having assessed all the factual circumstances related to the subject of the complaint, the following has been revealed:

2. Facts serving as a basis for making the decision:

By the judgment (hereinafter referred to as the Judgment) rendered by the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia on November 8, 2023, in administrative case N VD/1323/05/22, which entered into legal force, the Yerevan Municipality was obliged to provide Arsen Mkrtchyan with a favorable administrative act regarding the legalization of the self-built structure on the territory adjacent to David Bek Street in the Nor Nork administrative district, located behind the V. Sargsyan Institute, as requested in the application.

In fulfillment of the requirement of the Judgment, the Mayor of Yerevan adopted Decision N 2181-A of April 30, 2026, by point 1 of which the self-built residential building with a functional purpose, constructed on a land plot with a total area of 930.4 sq.m. located at 113/2 David Bek Street, Yerevan, which is the property of the city of Yerevan, was considered the property of the city of Yerevan and recognized as legal.

By letter N N/30443-26 of May 14, 2026, from the Architecture and Urban Development Department of the Yerevan Municipality Staff, in addition to letter N N/28038-26, the following was stated: "..... In connection with Decision N 2181-A of the Mayor of Yerevan dated 30.04.2026, we inform you that a qualified

in the floor plan solutions of the legalized building presented by the surveyor, residential premises are absent, which contradicts the requirements for a residential house defined by the RA Urban Development Norms 31.02.2022 "Residential Buildings, Part II Individual Residential Houses" /4. general provisions, point 25), and also the normative distance of the self-constructed residential house from the boundaries of the requested land plot is not ensured, according to the requirements defined by the RA Urban Development Norms 30.01.2023 "Urban Planning. Planning and Development of Urban and Rural Settlements" approved by the order N04-N /Amendment N19-N of November 5, 2024/ of the Chairman of the RA Urban Development Committee dated May 22, 2023 /points 131, 132 and chapter XXVII fire safety requirements/ for the light opening present in the facades adjacent to the boundaries of the building's land plot, which restricts the rights and legally protected interests of other persons /including Yerevan community/ in accordance with the procedure approved by the RA Government Decision N912-N of May 18, 2006 "On Approving the Procedure for Legalizing and Disposing of Self-Constructed Buildings" /point 2, subparagraph a)/."

By the decision N 3423-A of July 9, 2026, of the First Deputy Mayor of Yerevan, Acting Mayor, the decision N 2181-A of April 30, 2026, of the Mayor of Yerevan was declared invalid.

Arsen Mkrtchyan's representative Artur Hovhannisyan, by complaint N D-77561-26 of July 24, 2026, requested to declare invalid and annul the decision N 3423-A of July 9, 2026, of the First Deputy Mayor of Yerevan, Acting Mayor.

By complaint N D-77561-26 of July 24, 2026, no evidence was presented refuting the factual circumstances mentioned in letter N N/30443-26 of May 14, 2026, which formed the basis for the invalidity of decision N 3423-A of July 9, 2026, or substantiating that the indicated urban planning norms were not violated.

3. Justifications for adopting the decision.

According to Article 69 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", individuals have the right to appeal administrative acts, including the intervening provisions of combined administrative acts, as well as the action or inaction of an administrative body (hereinafter referred to as "act") for the purpose of protecting their rights.

According to Part 1 of Article 75 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", the consideration of an administrative complaint is carried out in accordance with the provisions defined by the second section of the same law, unless otherwise provided by the fourth section.

According to Part 2 of Article 75 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", an administrative complaint is considered from the perspective of the legality of the appealed administrative act, and in case of exercising discretionary authority, also from the perspective of expediency.

Arsen Mkrtchyan's representatives, with complaint No. D-77561-26, as well as with the position presented during the hearing of the proceedings, stated that the appealed decision was adopted in violation of the deadline set for the administrative proceedings, the administrative proceedings were initiated in the absence of legal grounds, since in the presence of a judicial act that has entered into legal force, the issue of legalizing the building, which is the subject of the decision, was resolved by judicial procedure, and in case of invalidity of the decision, it turns out that the execution of the judicial act is formal, moreover, the invalidity was based not on a professional conclusion, but on internal correspondence, which cannot confirm the circumstance that the structure is not subject to legalization. Arsen Mkrtchyan's representatives also based their appeal on the position expressed in the precedent decision of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, according to which the execution of a judicial act that has entered into legal force is a component of a person's right to a fair trial, and the effective execution of that act ensures the rule of law, therefore, in the process of executing a judicial act, the head of the community is no longer required to observe the procedure established by law, which is applicable in the absence of a dispute and/or a judicial act. According to part 1 of Article 42 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings", the administrative body evaluates as evidence in administrative proceedings the explanations, testimonies, expert opinions, documents, materials, items available in the case, as well as those circumstances that, in its discretion, that body deems suitable and necessary for the disclosure and evaluation of the factual circumstances of the case. According to point "a" of part 1 of Article 43 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings", the burden of proof in the relations between a person and an administrative body is borne by: 1. the person - in the presence of factual circumstances favorable to him, 2. the administrative body - in the presence of factual circumstances unfavorable to the person. By letter No. N/30443-26 of May 14, 2026, of the Department of Architecture and Urban Development of the Staff of the Yerevan Municipality, in addition to letter No. N/28038-26, the following was stated: "... In connection with decision No. 2181-A of 30.04.2026 of the Mayor of Yerevan, we inform that the floor plans of the legalized building submitted by a qualified surveyor lack residential premises, which contradicts the requirements for a residential building established by the RA Construction Norms 31.02.2022 "Residential Buildings, Part II Individual Residential Houses" (4. general provisions, point 25), and also the normative distance of the arbitrarily constructed residential house from the boundaries of the requested land plot is not ensured, in accordance with RA Construction Norms 30.01.2023 approved by order No. 04-N /Amendment 2024 November 5 No. 19-N/ of the Chairman of the RA Urban Development Committee of May 22, 2023.

«Urban Development. Planning and Construction of Urban and Rural Settlements» by the construction norms established requirements / points 131, 132 and chapter XXVII fire safety requirements / regarding the light opening on the facades adjacent to the boundaries of the building's land plot, which restricts the rights and legally protected interests of other persons / including the Yerevan community / in accordance with the procedure approved by the Government of the Republic of Armenia's decision N 912-N of May 18, 2006, «On Approving the Procedure for Legalizing and Disposing of Unauthorized Constructions» / point 2, subparagraph a) /.»

According to subparagraph «a» of point 2 of the Government of the Republic of Armenia's decision N 912-N of May 18, 2006, «On Approving the Procedure for Legalizing and Disposing of Unauthorized Constructions», unauthorized constructions whose preservation violates the rights and legally protected interests of other persons or poses a threat to the life and health of citizens are not subject to legalization. According to subparagraph «b» of the same point, unauthorized constructions that are built on land plots defined by Article 60 of the Land Code of the Republic of Armenia, as well as in alienation or safety zones of engineering and transport objects, or are built with significant violations of urban planning norms and rules and give rise to the right to demand compulsory servitude, are not subject to legalization.

According to part 1 of Article 63 of the Law «On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure», an unlawful administrative act that is not null and void is invalid if it was adopted:

a) in violation of the law, including as a result of incorrect application or interpretation of the law.

b) on the basis of forged documents or information, or if it is evident from the submitted documents that another decision should have been made in essence.

c) in a conflict of interest situation.

In the appeal N D-77561-26 of July 24, 2026, the appellant did not substantiate the factual circumstance that decision N 3423-A of July 9, 2026, is subject to invalidation on any grounds provided for in part 1 of Article 63 of the Law «On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure», did not present evidence refuting the factual circumstances mentioned in letter N/30443-26 of May 14, 2026, of the Department of Architecture and Urban Development of the Yerevan Municipality Staff, and substantiating that the requirements of the urban planning norms mentioned in the same letter were not violated, and also did not substantiate the inapplicability of the precedent decisions of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia cited in the appealed decision.

According to part 1 of Article 76 of the Law «On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure», after reviewing the administrative appeal against an administrative act, the administrative body that adopted the appealed administrative act is authorized to:

a) satisfy the appeal in whole or in part by declaring the administrative act invalid or null and void or by adopting a new administrative act.

b) reject the appeal, leaving the administrative act unchanged.

Based on the foregoing and taking into account that the proceedings for the revision of Yerevan Mayor's Decision N 3423-A of July 9, 2026, were initiated on June 11, 2026, as well as taking as a basis Report N/28038-26 of April 30, 2026, the letter of May 14, 2026, and guided by point 25 of "4. General Provisions" of the Armenian Construction Norms (ՀՀՇՆ) of February 31, 2022, "Residential Buildings, Part II Individual Residential Houses," points 131-132 of the requirements established by the Armenian Construction Norms (ՀՀՇՆ) of January 30, 2023, "Urban Planning. Planning and Development of Urban and Rural Settlements," approved by the order of the Chairman of the Urban Development Committee of the Republic of Armenia N 04-N of May 22, 2023 (Appendix amendment N 19-N of November 5, 2024), and the fire safety requirements of Chapter XXVII, sub-points "a" and "b" of point 2 of Decision N 912-N of May 18, 2006, of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, Articles 42, 43, 69, 75 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure" and sub-point "b" of Part 1 of Article 76 of the same law:

I DECIDED

1. To reject the complaint N D-77561-26 of July 24, 2026, submitted by Artur Hovhannisyan, representative of Arsen Mkrtchyan, addressed to the Yerevan Municipality, and to leave unchanged Decision N 3423-A of July 9, 2026, of the First Deputy Mayor of Yerevan, acting Mayor.
2. This decision enters into force on the day following its receipt.
3. This decision may be appealed administratively to the Mayor of Yerevan or judicially to the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia within a two-month period from the date of its entry into force.

TIGRAN AVINYAN