On rejecting the application-notification

MAYOR OF YEREVAN

DECISION

RA, 0015, Yerevan, Argishti 1
№____________ « » 2026

ON REJECTING THE APPLICATION-NOTIFICATION

1. Description of the issue resolved by the decision:

Based on the application-notification No. D-71080-26 dated July 8, 2026, of "Ingo Armenia" Insurance Closed Joint-Stock Company addressed to the Yerevan Municipality, administrative proceedings were carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure".

In connection with the examination of the subject of the application-notification No. D-71080-26 dated July 8, 2026 (hereinafter also referred to as the Application), hearings were convened on August 3, 2026, the notification of which was ensured by letter No. 07/101052-26 dated July 27, 2026, of the acting head of the Legal Department of the Yerevan Municipality Staff, sent to the e-mail address of "Ingo Armenia" Insurance Closed Joint-Stock Company, but no representative of "Ingo Armenia" Insurance Closed Joint-Stock Company appeared at the hearings.

Having examined the application-notification No. D-71080-26 dated July 3, 2026, and the attached evidence, and evaluating all factual circumstances related to the submitted claim, the following was revealed:

2. Facts serving as the basis for the decision:

"Ingo Armenia" Insurance Closed Joint-Stock Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company), addressed to the Yerevan Municipality, by application-notification No. D-71080-26 dated July 8, 2026, based on Article 352, Article 411, and Part 1 of Article 1021 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, requested the Company to pay, by right of recourse, the amount of 355,000 (three hundred fifty-five thousand) AMD reimbursed to "Di Si Di" Limited Liability Company, the owner of the "Porsche" brand car with registration number "027 VB 27" driven by Vera Boyajyan, as damage resulting from the damage to the said car due to falling into a pit and being involved in a self-accident while driving on Tbilisi Highway in Yerevan city on February 28, 2026.

According to the first paragraph of section "3. Conclusions" of expert opinion No. 2602-01-26 of the expert conducting the primary (additional) examination of the causes of the accident, compiled on April 8, 2026, by "Lidex" Expert and Research Center" Limited Liability Company, it is impossible to determine whether the driver of the "Porsche" brand car with license plate "027 VB 27" had the opportunity to prevent the given accident or not, and whether his actions contradicted the requirements of point 67 of the Traffic Rules or not, due to the insufficiency of the initial data submitted for examination. According to the second paragraph of the same section, under the presented conditions, the responsible official for road maintenance, by not maintaining the road section at the scene of the accident in a safe condition for traffic, and also by not taking immediate measures to eliminate the existing pothole in the given road section - if necessary, temporarily restricting road traffic in the given road section - allowed actions contradicting the requirements of Part 1 of Article 21 of the Law "On Ensuring Road Traffic Safety", thereby causing the given accident. 3. Grounds for adopting the decision: According to Part 1 of Article 42 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", the administrative body evaluates as evidence in administrative proceedings the explanations, testimonies, expert opinions, documents, materials, items, as well as circumstances that, at 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 Procedure", in the relations between a person and an administrative body, the burden of proof is borne by the person in the presence of factual circumstances favorable to him. In the case under consideration, based on the factual circumstances underlying the claim presented in the Application, it is subject to clarification whether: 1) the submitted evidence substantiates the fact that the accident involving the "Porsche" brand car with license plate "027 VB 27" on February 28, 2026, occurred due to a pothole on the road, and whether the driver had the technical possibility to prevent the accident; 2) the submitted evidence substantiates the existence of fault of the Yerevan Municipality in the accident that occurred on February 28, 2026, involving the "Porsche" brand car with license plate "027 VB 27"; 3) the submitted evidence substantiates that the self-accident that occurred on February 28, 2026, involving the "Porsche" brand car with license plate "027 VB 27", was a direct result of unlawful administration (inaction) by the Yerevan Municipality,

the circumstance of being a direct and unavoidable consequence (the existence of a causal link between the administrative body's alleged unlawful inaction and the damage),

4. whether the submitted evidence substantiates the circumstance that "Di Si Di" Limited Liability Company has the right of recourse against the Yerevan community for the amount of 355,000 (three hundred fifty-five thousand) AMD reimbursed to it.

The provision of Article 43, Part 1, Sub-point "a" of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure" applies to the proof of the mentioned factual circumstances, which stipulates that in the relations between a person and an administrative body, the burden of proof lies with the person in the presence of factual circumstances favorable to him.

According to Article 17, Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, a person whose right has been violated may demand full compensation for the damages caused to him, unless a smaller amount of compensation for damages is provided by law or contract.

According to Article 17, Part 2 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, damages are: the expenses incurred or to be incurred by the person whose right has been violated to restore the violated right, the loss or damage to his property (actual damage), as well as the unreceived income that such person would have received under normal conditions of civil circulation if his right had not been violated (lost profit).

According to Article 1058, Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, damage caused to a citizen's person or property, as well as to the property of a legal entity, is subject to full compensation by the person who caused it.

According to Article 1074, Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, a person who has compensated for damage caused by another person (an employee performing official, professional or other labor duties, driving vehicles, etc., as well as a volunteer engaged in voluntary work by him in accordance with the procedure established by the Law "On Voluntary Work" performing duties established by law within the scope of voluntary work) has the right of recourse (regress) against that person in the amount of the compensation paid by him, unless a different amount is established by law.

It follows from the content of the legal norm established by Article 1074, Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia that the right of recourse can be acquired against the person who caused the damage, moreover, the legislator has clarified what range of persons the term "another person" implies.

Based on the substantive analysis of the legal norm established by Article 1074, Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, it can be stated that in the discussed legal relations, the Yerevan Municipality or the Yerevan community are not "another person" in the sense of the regulation of the mentioned norm, since it has not been proven by the materials submitted in the proceedings

the factual circumstance of the damage occurring due to the fault of the Yerevan Municipality or the Yerevan community. According to Article 1063 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, damage caused to a citizen or legal entity by illegal actions (inaction) of state bodies, local self-government bodies or their officials, including as a result of the publication of an act by a state or local self-government body that does not comply with the law or other legal act, is compensated by the Republic of Armenia or the respective community. According to Article 96 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", compensation for damage is not carried out until the legal act, action or inaction of the administrative body, by which damage was caused to the person, has been recognized as unlawful in the prescribed manner, except for cases provided for in Article 109 of the same law. The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, referring to the issue of compensation for damage caused as a result of unlawful administration, noted in a previously adopted decision that for a claim for compensation for damage as a result of administration, it is necessary that, first of all, the legal act, action or inaction of the administrative body that caused damage to the person be recognized as unlawful, after which the person is obliged to first apply to the administrative body that caused the damage, in case of full or partial rejection of the claim for compensation by it or non-consideration of the application, the administrative act, action or inaction can be appealed in a hierarchical or judicial procedure (see, Decision of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia of December 3, 2010, in administrative case No. VD/3280/05/09). In the case under consideration, the claim mentioned in the Application was submitted to the Yerevan Municipality with the reasoning that the "Porsche" brand car with registration number "027 VB 27" was damaged due to falling into a pit on the road located in the accident area, and considering the administrative body's fault in this implies the discussion of the issue of alleged inaction by the latter in the form of not ensuring the condition of that section of the road in accordance with the prescribed procedure, within the framework of which it is crucial to clarify whether or not the Yerevan Municipality displayed unlawful inaction that led to the accident under discussion, whether or not it was recognized as unlawful in the manner prescribed by law, and whether or not the alleged damage (recourse claim) is a direct, immediate and unavoidable consequence of the administrative body's unlawful inaction. The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, in its decisions, has addressed the conditions for liability for caused damage, in particular, it has stated that a mandatory condition for compensation for damage is the simultaneous presence of unlawful conduct of the person who violated the right, damages, a causal link between the damages and the unlawful action, and the debtor's fault. Moreover, in the absence of any of the mentioned conditions, the damage is not subject to compensation (see, Natalya Hakobyan

against Vardan Hayrapetyan, case No. HCD3/0016/02/08, decision of the RA Court of Cassation dated 13.02.2009). In judicial practice, unlawful, irregular conduct is characterized as an action or inaction that violates the requirements of the law, other legal acts, as well as the subjective right of a person. An action is a purposeful, voluntary act of a person, while inaction is expressed by refraining from displaying necessary and mandatory conduct. The causal link between irregular conduct and damage implies that the damage must be a direct, immediate consequence of the irregular conduct. In cases where the damage is not necessarily dictated by an unlawful action (inaction), or the link between the action (inaction) and the damage is indirect, the condition of a necessary causal link for compensation of damage is not present. According to point 65 of the rules approved by the decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia No. 955-N dated June 28, 2007, "On approving the rules of road traffic in the Republic of Armenia and the list of malfunctions and conditions prohibiting the operation of vehicles", the driver must drive the vehicle at a speed not exceeding the established speed, taking into account the intensity of traffic and the condition and characteristics of the vehicle and cargo, road and meteorological conditions, in particular, the condition of the road surface and visibility in the direction of traffic. Point 67 of the same rules states that in case of an obstacle or danger to traffic, which the driver was able to detect, he must take measures to reduce the speed, up to stopping the vehicle. In this case, overtaking and bypassing are permissible if the driver is convinced that it is safe for other road users. In connection with the claim presented in the application, the Company did not submit conclusions prepared by an expert with appropriate qualifications in the field regarding a reliable examination of the circumstances of the self-accident involving a "Porsche" brand car with registration number "027 VB 27" on February 28, 2026, the impossibility of preventing the accident, traceological, auto-technical, commodity expertise of the car, and also did not submit (there is no) a judicial act that has entered into legal force, which recognized as unlawful the alleged inaction of the Yerevan Municipality in the factors that caused the mentioned accident. According to part 1 of Article 37 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", the administrative body is obliged to ensure a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the factual circumstances, revealing all circumstances of the case, including those in favor of the participants in the proceedings. The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, in its decision dated July 17, 2015, in civil case No. EED/1284/02/12, addressing the issue of evaluating evidence, noted that the evidence

each type has its own characteristics, which may be conditioned by the nature of the formation of the evidence, the source, the form of expression and other factors, therefore, even in a general order, the evaluation must be carried out taking into account these characteristics. In the same decision, referring to the expert's conclusion, as characteristics of the evaluation of evidence, the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia singled out the main criteria that are subject to application when evaluating evidence from the point of view of relevance, admissibility and credibility. Accordingly, the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia found that when evaluating the expert's conclusion in terms of relevance, first of all, it is necessary to take into account the extent to which the questions posed to the expert are important for the resolution of the case, and only then address the conclusions made regarding those questions, when evaluating from the point of view of admissibility, the qualification and competence of the person conducting the examination is of primary importance, when evaluating from the point of view of credibility, it is necessary to take into account the degree of scientific justification of the methods used during the examination, the nature of the initial data, the degree of argumentation of the expert's conclusions, the conformity of the conclusion with other evidence available in the case. As evidence substantiating the claim, the conclusion No. 2602-01-26 of April 8, 2026, of "Lidex" Expert and Research Center" Limited Liability Company was submitted with the Application, the evidentiary significance of which, when evaluated based on the positions expressed in the precedent decision cited above, it can be stated that it is not proper evidence objectively revealing the causes of the accident, as it was carried out in the absence of necessary initial data, therefore it is evaluated as unreliable. According to Article 6, Part 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, state and local self-government bodies and officials are authorized to perform only such actions for which they are authorized by the Constitution or laws. Article 1, Part 1 of the Law "On Ensuring Road Traffic Safety" (hereinafter - the Law) defines that the same law regulates the relations arising in the field of ensuring road traffic safety in the Republic of Armenia, defines the principles and directions of state policy in the field of ensuring road traffic safety, the legal bases for organizing and ensuring road traffic safety, the powers of state administration and local self-government bodies in the field of organizing and ensuring road traffic safety, as well as the rights and obligations of road traffic participants. According to Article 9.1, Part 1, "e" of the Law, in the field of ensuring road traffic safety, the internal affairs

the authorized body of state administration in the field (hereinafter referred to as the authorized body of internal affairs) supervises the fulfillment of the requirements of the legislation on ensuring road safety and takes measures provided by law, and point "e" of part 1 of the same article supervises the compliance of roads and their engineering structures, technical means of road traffic organization with the requirements of technical norms, rules and standards, and submits demands for the elimination of identified violations. According to point "jg" of part 1 of article 10 of the Law, the Police of the Republic of Armenia organizes and conducts preventive measures aimed at ensuring road safety. From the above-cited legal norms provided for in articles 1, 9.1 and 10 of the Law, it follows that the function of ensuring safe traffic is carried out by the Police of the Republic of Armenia, therefore, in the matter of compensation for damages arising from a road traffic accident due to presumably unsafe traffic, the Mayor of Yerevan is not the competent responsible administrative body. Based on the foregoing and taking into account that the administrative proceedings carried out on the basis of the Application did not prove the circumstance that the self-accident involving the "Porsche" brand car with registration number "027 VB 27" on February 28, 2026, occurred due to the fault of the Yerevan Municipality, that is, no judicial act that has entered into legal force recognizing the alleged inaction of the Yerevan Municipality due to the presence of a pit in the carriageway at the scene of the accident as unlawful was submitted, the acquisition by the Company of the right of recourse against the Yerevan Municipality for the amount subject to the Application was not substantiated, the circumstance that the damage subject to the Application is a direct, immediate and unavoidable consequence of the alleged unlawful inaction of the Yerevan Municipality was not substantiated, and also taking into account that no expert opinions were submitted regarding the traceological, auto-technical, commodity science, and circumstances of the accident of the vehicle, therefore, based on articles 17, 1058, 1063, 1074 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, articles 1, 9.1 and 10 of the Law "On Ensuring Road Safety", provisions of points 65 and 67 of the rules approved by Decision N 955-N of the Government of the Republic of Armenia dated June 28, 2007, and guided by articles 37, 42, 43 and 96 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings" - I DECIDED to reject the claim submitted by application-notification N D-71080-26 dated July 8, 2026, addressed to the Yerevan Municipality on behalf of "Ingo Armenia" Insurance Closed Joint-Stock Company.

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.

FIRST DEPUTY MAYOR OF YEREVAN, ACTING MAYOR OF YEREVAN
ARMEN PAMBUKHCHYAN

X
ARMEN PAMBUKHCHYAN
Signed by: PAMBUKHCHYAN ARMEN 3611840246