YEREVAN MAYOR
DECISION
RA, 0015, Yerevan, Argishti 1
№____________ « » 2026

ON INVALIDATING YEREVAN MAYOR'S DECISION N 600-A OF FEBRUARY 5, 2026

1. Description of the issue resolved by the decision:

Based on the report N/36036-26 of June 10, 2026, from the Head of the Architecture and Urban Development Department of the Yerevan Municipality Staff, addressed to the Mayor of Yerevan, and guided by point "b" of part 1 of Article 30 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", administrative proceedings were initiated and carried out on July 23, 2026.

Within the framework of the administrative proceedings, hearings were convened on August 13, 2026, at 11:00 AM, which were attended by Asatur Gyogchyan, a person involved in the proceedings.

Having examined the report N/36036-26 of June 10, 2026, from the Head of the Architecture and Urban Development Department of the Yerevan Municipality Staff, the written document titled "Position" submitted by Asatur Gyogchyan on August 13, 2026, and the minutes of August 13, 2026, regarding the hearings conducted within the framework of the administrative proceedings, and having evaluated the factual circumstances and evidence related to the subject of the proceedings, the following has been clarified:

2. Facts serving as the basis for the decision:

By the decision of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia dated August 28, 2023, in administrative case N VD/3237/05/22, which entered into legal force (hereinafter referred to as the Decision), the Yerevan Municipality was obliged to provide an administrative act regarding the legalization of the self-constructed building by Asatur Gyogchyan located in front of house N 1 on Lukashin Street in Yerevan, within the framework of the Government of the Republic of Armenia's decision N 912-N of May 18, 2006, "On Approving the Procedure for Legalizing and Managing Self-Constructed Buildings."

In fulfillment of the requirement of the Decision, Yerevan Mayor's decision N 600-A of February 5, 2026, was adopted, by point 1 of which a total area of 208.0 sq.m located at S. Lukashin Street N 1/5 in Yerevan, which is the property of the city of Yerevan,

a semi-finished residential building constructed on the land plot, the self-built structure with functional purpose was considered the property of the city of Yerevan and was recognized as legal.

According to report N/36036-26 dated June 10, 2026, of the Head of the Architecture and Urban Development Department of the Yerevan Municipality Staff, the land plot burdened with the self-built structure located in front of house N 1, Lukashin Street, Yerevan, is included in the residential development land zone of residential areas, according to the conditional symbols of the General Plan of Yerevan approved by decision N 204-N of September 10, 2024, of the Yerevan City Council. The mentioned self-built structure does not comply with the requirements for the classification of buildings defined by decision N 600-N of April 15, 2021, of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, however, based on the requirements of the Judgment, decision N 600-A of the Mayor of Yerevan "On the legalization of a self-built structure" was made on February 5, 2026.

During the hearings, Asatur Gyogchyan stated in connection with the subject of the proceedings that he objects to the invalidity of decision N 600-A of February 5, 2026, of the Mayor of Yerevan, because there are judicial acts that have entered into legal force regarding the recognition of the building as legal, and the discussed building was constructed for the purpose of being used as a garage, it does not bother anyone and represents a platform.

During the hearings of the proceedings, Asatur Gyogchyan submitted a written position, in which he expressed objections, noting that in the presence of a judicial act that has entered into legal force, the Yerevan Municipality is no longer authorized to check the legality of decision N 600-N of February 5, 2026, of the Mayor of Yerevan.

3. Grounds for adopting the decision.

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.

According to Article 38, Part 1 of the Law "On Normative Legal Acts", a normative legal act is recognized as invalid by an act of the law-making body, its successor, or a body endowed with appropriate powers, if the subordinate normative legal act was adopted or operated in contradiction with a normative legal act having higher legal force.

According to Article 37, Part 1 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings", 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.

According to Article 42, Part 1 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, as well as those

the circumstances which, at its discretion, that body deems suitable and necessary for the disclosure and evaluation of the factual circumstances of the case. According to point "b" 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 lies with the administrative body in the presence of factual circumstances unfavorable to the person. According to part 2 of the same article, if, in the case provided for in point "a" of part 1 of this article, the person can become aware of the data (information) regarding the factual circumstances considered by the administrative body exclusively through that administrative body, then the burden of proof is placed on that administrative body. According to part 1 of Article 48 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", if the administrative body authorized to adopt an administrative act does not make any decision within the period prescribed by law as a result of the proceedings initiated on the basis of an application submitted in compliance with the requirements of points "a", "d" and "e" of part 1 of Article 31 of this law, then the administrative act is considered adopted, and the applicant may proceed to the exercise of the corresponding right, with the exception of the cases provided for in part 2 of this article. According to part 2 of the same article, the administrative act provided for in part 1 of this article cannot be considered adopted if it is null and void according to point "d" of part 1 of Article 62 of this law. According to sub-point "d" of part 1 of Article 62 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", an administrative act is null and void if it contains, in particular, the following obvious gross errors: the act imposes an obviously unlawful obligation on its addressee, or grants him an obviously unlawful right. It follows from the analysis of the above legal norms that in case the administrative body does not adopt any decision within the period prescribed by law as a result of the proceedings initiated on the basis of the application submitted by the person, the administrative act is considered adopted, and the person may proceed to the exercise of his requested right, with an exception provided for the case when such an administrative act is null and void, i.e., in that case, the administrative act cannot be considered an adopted administrative act. At the same time, for an administrative act to be null and void, it is necessary that it imposes an obviously unlawful obligation on the addressee, or grants him an obviously unlawful right, the absence of which excludes the circumstance of the administrative act being null and void. The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia has expressed the following legal position regarding an administrative act considered adopted by operation of law: "... The operation of the legal fiction defined by Article 48 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure" is not conditioned by the lawfulness of the requested administrative act, and even an unlawful administrative act, according to the mentioned legal provision, can be considered adopted, with the exception that if that act grants its addressee an obviously unlawful right. Based on the above, the Court of Cassation

recognizes that the lawfulness of the requested administrative act is not a condition for the operation of the legal fiction defined by Article 48 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure". An exception to the above is the existence of a ground for nullity of an administrative act provided for by Article 62, Part 1, "d" of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", namely, that the act grants its addressee an obviously unlawful right. That is, when determining the operation of the fiction that an administrative act not adopted by the administrative body within the period prescribed by law is considered adopted by force of law, judicial oversight is limited to evaluating the existence (absence) of the ground for nullity of the administrative act provided for by Article 62, Part 1, "d" of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure".»

As for the possible grounds for invalidity of the requested administrative act, as well as other possible grounds for nullity, when determining the operation of a legal fiction, their existence is not subject to examination by the court, and the administrative body, being authorized to review the lawfulness of the administrative act adopted by it, may, in the manner prescribed by law, make the grounds for invalidity of the administrative act subject to discussion and give them an appropriate legal assessment.

In this case, within the framework of administrative case No. VD/3237/05/22, only the issue of the nullity of the requested administrative act was examined, and the issue of the lawfulness of the administrative act requested by Asatur Gyogchyan, from the point of view of identifying grounds for invalidity, was not subject to discussion.

The precedent decisions made by the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia have expressed the position that the legislator has provided that unlawful administrative acts appear in two forms: as invalid and as null administrative acts. The legislator, taking into account the importance of the requirement for certainty of an administrative act, has provided that in some cases, non-compliance with the requirement for certainty of an administrative act leads to the nullity of the administrative act. If it is not clear from the administrative act or it is not unambiguously clear which administrative body adopted it, or it is not clear from the act to whom it is specifically addressed, or it is not known what issue it regulates, then that administrative act, according to Article 62, Part 1, "a" and "c" of the Law of the Republic of Armenia "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", is a null administrative act. However, if the administrative act does not comply with the requirement of legal certainty, and at the same time, the grounds for recognizing the administrative act as null established by the legislator are not present, an administrative act that does not comply with the requirement of legal certainty cannot be considered null, but it can be recognized as invalid.

The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, referring to the fictitious administrative act considered adopted by force of law, has expressed the following legal position in its precedent decisions: «.... in cases where the administrative body does not make a decision regarding a person's application in the manner and within the period prescribed by law, then the requested favorable administrative act is considered "de jure"

accepted, which means that the administrative proceedings initiated on the basis of the application are considered closed, after which the administrative body is no longer authorized to make any decision regarding the same application, unless the issue of the legality of the fictitious administrative act has been raised and resolved in the manner prescribed by law." (basis: decision of October 1, 2025, in administrative case No. VD/0324/05/23).
According to point "a" of part 1 of Article 63 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", an invalid administrative act that is not null and void is one that was adopted in violation of the law, including as a result of incorrect application or incorrect interpretation of the law.
The list of classification of the intended purpose of buildings was established by the decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia No. 600-N of April 15, 2021.
Based on the above and taking as a basis the report No. N/36036-26 of June 10, 2026, of the Head of the Department of Architecture and Urban Development of the Staff of the Yerevan Municipality, and guided by the decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia No. 600-N of April 15, 2021, Articles 43 and 58 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", point "a" of part 1 of Article 63:
I DECIDED

1. To declare invalid the decision of the Mayor of Yerevan No. 600-A of February 5, 2026.
2. This decision enters into force on the day following its receipt.
3. This decision may be appealed in administrative order to the Mayor of Yerevan or in judicial order to the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia within a two-month period from the date of its entry into force.

TIGRAN AVINYAN