DECISION OF THE MAYOR OF YEREVAN

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

ON REJECTING THE COMPLAINT

1. Description of the issue resolved by the decision:

An administrative procedure was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure" based on the complaint of Pavel Ghavazyan dated July 15, 2026, No. D-73698-26, addressed to the Yerevan Municipality.

Within the framework of the administrative procedure, hearings were convened on August 3, 2026, which Pavel Ghavazyan attended and participated in.

Having examined Pavel Ghavazyan's complaint dated July 15, 2026, No. D-73698-26, having evaluated the evidence attached to the said complaint and received within the framework of the proceedings, the protocol of August 3, 2026, regarding the hearings conducted within the framework of the administrative procedure, as well as all factual circumstances related to the case, the following was revealed:

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

By the complaint dated July 15, 2026, No. D-73698-26 (hereinafter also referred to as the Complaint) addressed to the Yerevan Municipality and the position expressed during the hearings of the proceedings, Pavel Ghavazyan requested to invalidate Decision No. 1911-A of the Mayor of Yerevan dated April 13, 2026, and to compensate for the damage caused by the demolition of the building constructed on the land plot owned by the community, in front of building No. 34 on Shirazi Street in Yerevan, in the amount of 3,271,000 (three million two hundred seventy-one thousand) AMD, of which 3,171,000 (three million one hundred seventy-one thousand) AMD represents material damage, and 100,000 (one hundred thousand) AMD represents other expenses.

By point 1 of Decision No. 1911-A of the Mayor of Yerevan dated April 13, 2026, it was decided not to legalize the self-constructed building on the land plot owned by the community, located in front of building No. 34 on Shirazi Street in Ajapnyak administrative district, without land use rights and without appropriate permission.

By point 2 of Decision No. 1911-A of the Mayor of Yerevan dated April 13, 2026, it was decided to instruct the head of the Ajapnyak administrative district of Yerevan – the urban planning and land department of the Yerevan Municipality staff

demolish the stone structure illegally built on the land owned by the community in front of building No. 34 on Shiraz Street in Yerevan, with the assistance of the Control Department and the Public Order Protection Service, and to free the community-owned land from illegal possession. According to the content of the document titled "Declaration" attached to the complaint, Khosrov Hovhannisyan stated that in 2011, he built a garage with his own funds, which is located next to building No. 36 on Shiraz Street in Yerevan, which was registered in the Ajapnyak district administration and received an operating license with registration number A-15-0010, and in 2022, he sold the same garage to Pavel Ghavazyan for 3,171,000 (three million one hundred seventy-one thousand) AMD, and the name change was made in the district administration in the name of Pavel Ghavazyan. On June 10, 2022, the head of the Ajapnyak administrative district of Yerevan issued certificate No. 28/101706-22, according to which garage No. A15-0010, located next to building No. 36 on Shiraz Street, is actually possessed and used by Pavel Ghavazyan (basis: certificate No. 866 of September 29, 2022, of the "Anushik" condominium). By letter No. 28/60339-26 of May 8, 2026, from the Deputy Head of the Ajapnyak administrative district of Yerevan, acting Head of the administrative district, in response to Pavel Ghavazyan's application No. D-43115-26 of April 28, 2026, addressed to the Yerevan Municipality, it was informed that the stone structure located on the community-owned land in front of building No. 34 on Shiraz Street was dismantled in accordance with Yerevan Mayor's decision No. 1911-A of April 13, 2026. By letter No. 28/78595-26 of June 15, 2026, from the Head of the Ajapnyak administrative district of Yerevan, in response to Pavel Ghavazyan's application No. D-58776-26 of June 8, 2026, addressed to the Yerevan Municipality, it was informed that the stone structure located on the community-owned land in front of building No. 34 on Shiraz Street was dismantled on the basis of Yerevan Mayor's decision No. 1911-A of April 13, 2026. The same letter also stated that major renovation works of the yard are being carried out at the mentioned address. By letter No. D-73698-26 of July 21, 2026, from the Head of the Ajapnyak administrative district of Yerevan, it was informed that within the framework of contract No. YQ-GHAShDZB-26/71-1 "On the performance of contract works" concluded on April 22, 2026, according to the program of the staff of the Head of the Ajapnyak administrative district, major renovation works of the courtyard area of building No. 32 on Shiraz Street are being carried out, in accordance with the developed and expert-approved work project No. YQ-BMKhAShDZB-25/33. The mentioned letter also stated that, according to the same project, the self-built metal and stone structures in the area being improved, including the self-built stone structure in front of building No. 34 on Shiraz Street, were to be dismantled. Attached to the complaint, as well as during the hearing of the proceedings, Pavel Ghavazyan's

no evidence was presented by the party justifying the circumstance that a loss in the amount of 3,271,000 (three million two hundred seventy-one thousand) AMD occurred as a result of the execution of the Yerevan Mayor's Decision N 1911-A dated April 13, 2026, and that such loss is subject to compensation by the Yerevan Municipality.

3. Justifications for adopting the decision.

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

According to Part 2 of Article 75 of the Law "On Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings", an administrative appeal is discussed from the perspective of the lawfulness of the appealed administrative act, and in the case of exercising discretionary power, also from the perspective of expediency.

According to point "a" of Part 1 of Article 76 of the Law "On Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings", by discussing the administrative appeal brought against an administrative act, the administrative body that adopted the appealed administrative act is authorized to:

a) satisfy the appeal in full or in part, by recognizing the administrative act as invalid or null and void, or by adopting a new administrative act;

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

According to Part 1 of Article 63 of the Law "On Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings", 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 incorrect interpretation of the law;

b) on the basis of false documents or information, or if it is obvious from the submitted documents that a different decision should have been adopted in essence;

c) in a situation of conflict of interest.

According to Part 1 of Article 188 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, a building, structure, or other construction built or reconstructed or installed on a land plot not allocated for that purpose in the manner prescribed by law and other legal acts, or without permission, or with significant violations of the conditions set by the permission or urban planning norms and rules, is considered an unauthorized construction. According to Part 1.1 of the same Article, an unauthorized construction cannot be recognized as legal and is subject to demolition (dismantling). According to Part 3 of the same Article, the owner of a land plot has the right to demolish an unauthorized construction located on their land plot without applying to court. The decision on the demolition (dismantling) of an unauthorized construction located on a land plot that is state or community property is made by the competent bodies defined by law.

May 18, 2006 of the Government of the Republic of Armenia

According to point 33 of the procedure approved by Annex N 1 of decision N 912-N, the head of the community, on his own initiative, adopts a decision on legalizing or demolishing unauthorized constructions located on state or community-owned land plots.

It follows from the provisions of the above-cited legal norms and the described factual circumstances that Yerevan Mayor's decision N 1911-A of April 13, 2026, was made in accordance with the requirements of the current legal norms, did not interfere with and did not violate any right of the complainant, the complainant did not have a legitimate expectation or a justified interest in acquiring a right to the given building, therefore, in connection with the adoption of Yerevan Mayor's decision N 1911-A of April 13, 2026, there is no prerequisite for the invalidity of the administrative act provided for by Article 63, Part 1 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure".

According to Article 37, Part 2 of the Law "On Normative Legal Acts", a normative legal act limited by a deadline, by the performance of an action or by the occurrence of a fact, is considered to have lost its force upon the expiration of the deadline, the performance of the action or the occurrence of the fact. In such cases, a separate normative legal act on recognizing the normative legal act as having lost its force is not adopted.

According to Article 61, Part 2 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", an administrative act may not contain any indication regarding the term of its operation in cases provided for by law, if the resolution of the issue regulated by the act is related to the performance of certain one or more such actions or the occurrence of an event, by the completion or occurrence of which the term of operation of that act is determined (conditional act). The term of its operation ends at the moment of fulfillment of the condition provided for by that act.

In the case under consideration, Yerevan Mayor's decision N 1911-A of April 13, 2026, was adopted for the purpose of resolving the issues of not legalizing the unauthorized construction located on the community-owned land plot in front of building N 34 on Shirazi Street in Yerevan, dismantling it and freeing the community-owned land plot from illegal possession, and performing the corresponding actions, which have already been carried out, due to which, by virtue of the law, the term of operation of the mentioned decision is considered to have expired and the decision to have lost its force.

In the case under consideration, taking into account that Yerevan Mayor's decision N 1911-A of April 13, 2026, in the context of the legal regulation of Article 37, Part 2 of the Law "On Normative Legal Acts", no longer being in force, is not subject to the regulation of Article 63, Part 1, "a" of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure" and cannot be recognized as invalid.

administrative act, therefore the mentioned circumstance already creates sufficient grounds to reject the first claim presented by the Appeal, to declare invalid the decision N 1911-A of April 13, 2026, of the Mayor of Yerevan, due to which the claim to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the administrative act is not made a separate subject of evaluation, as it is derived from the claim of invalidity of the administrative act. According to point 10 of part 1 of Article 14 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, the protection of civil rights is carried out by compensating damages. According to part 1 of Article 17 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 part 2 of Article 17 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 of his property (actual damage), the unrealized income that this person would have received under normal conditions of civil circulation if his right had not been violated (lost profit), as well as non-pecuniary damage. According to part 1 of Article 95 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", damage caused to persons as a result of administration carried out by administrative bodies is subject to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the seventh section of the same law. In the case under consideration, based on the content of the claim for compensation for damages presented by the Appeal and the factual circumstances underlying it, it is subject to clarification whether the evidence presented by Pavel Ghavazyan proves that: 1) as a result of decision N 1911-A of April 13, 2026, of the Mayor of Yerevan, Pavel Ghavazyan suffered damage, 2) the alleged damage suffered by Pavel Ghavazyan amounts to 3,271,000 (three million two hundred seventy-one thousand) AMD, 3) the alleged damage suffered by Pavel Ghavazyan is a direct, immediate and unavoidable consequence of decision N 1911-A of April 13, 2026, of the Mayor of Yerevan or the actions of the Yerevan Municipality, 4) there is a causal link between decision N 1911-A of April 13, 2026, of the Mayor of Yerevan or the actions of the Yerevan Municipality and the alleged damage suffered by Pavel Ghavazyan. 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 a person, has been recognized as unlawful in the prescribed manner, except for the cases provided for in Article 109 of the same law.

The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, in its decisions, has addressed the conditions for liability for damages caused, in particular, it has recorded that for compensation of damages, a mandatory condition is the simultaneous presence of unlawful conduct of the person who violated the right, damages, a causal link between the damages and the unlawful act, and the fault of the debtor. Moreover, in the absence of any of the mentioned conditions, the damage is not subject to compensation (see, the decision of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia dated 13.02.2009 in case No. HCD3/0016/02/08 of Natalya Hakobyan v. Vardan Hayrapetyan). The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, referring to the legislative regulations on compensation for damages, emphasized the following: "It follows from Article 17 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia that damage can be expressed by incurring unforeseen additional expenses or the necessity of incurring such expenses, loss or damage to property, non-receipt of income (lost profit). Unlawful, unlawful conduct is 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, and inaction is expressed by refraining from demonstrating necessary and mandatory conduct. The causal link between unlawful conduct and damage implies that the damage must be a direct, immediate consequence of the unlawful conduct. In cases where the damage is not necessarily dictated by the unlawful act (inaction), or the link between the act (inaction) and the damage is indirect, the condition of a necessary causal link for compensation of damages is not present. (see, the decision dated 04.10.2013 in case No. EKD/2600/02/10 of Nelly Mkrtchyan v. "Yerevan Hotel" CJSC)." The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, referring to the issue of compensation for damages caused by unlawful administration, in its previously adopted decision, noted that for a claim for compensation for damages as a result of administration, it is necessary that, first of all, the legal act, action or inaction of the administrative body that caused the damage be recognized as unlawful, after which the person is obliged to first apply to the administrative body that caused the damage, and in case of complete or partial rejection of the claim for compensation by that body or failure to consider the application, the administrative act, action or inaction can be appealed through superior or judicial procedure (see, the decision of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia dated December 3, 2010 in administrative case No. VD/3280/05/09). The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, in its decision dated December 26, 2016, in administrative case No. VD/1761/05/14, provided the following clarification: "Thus, the conditions for the state's liability as a result of unlawful administration are the existence of damage and its occurrence (causation) as a result of unlawful administration. That is, there must be a link between the violation of the obligations of administrative bodies and the causation of damage.

legal causal connection must exist. In other words, recognizing an administration as unlawful does not yet mean that the person suffered damage precisely as a result of the administration; it is necessary that there be a direct causal connection between the administration and the damage caused. The issue of causal connection must become a subject of separate evaluation in each specific case, and when determining its existence, the idea that a causal connection can only be spoken of when the occurrence of damage is the inevitable and direct result of unlawful administration should be considered central. Therefore, a causal connection between unlawful administration and the damages incurred may exist if the occurrence of damage is the objectively necessary and direct result of the administration carried out. If negative consequences could have arisen even without unlawful administration (and in cases provided by law, even lawful administration), then there is no causal connection between them. Based on the above, the Court of Cassation concludes that the absence of even one of the mentioned conditions precludes the possibility of satisfying the claim for compensation for damages." --- According to Article 172, Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, property rights to new property prepared or created by a person for themselves are acquired by that person, in compliance with the requirements of the law and other legal acts. According to Article 173 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, the right of ownership to newly created immovable property arises from the moment of its state registration. It is clear from the arguments described in the complaint that Pavel Ghavazyan presented a self-built structure without urban planning documents as damaged or lost (demolished) property, which allows us to state that it did not comply with the requirements of Article 10, Part 2, Article 135, Part 1, and Article 173 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, which regulate legal relations related to the creation of new immovable property, the acquisition of ownership rights over it, and its state registration, that is, the determination of the status and ownership of immovable property. Therefore, it has not been proven in the proceedings that as a result of its dismantling, Pavel Ghavazyan suffered a loss or damage to property (actual damage) in the sense of Article 17 of the same Code. The general position underlying the claim for compensation for damages is that the alleged damage arose as a result of the dismantling (demolition) by the owner of the land plot of a self-built structure carried out in violation of the law, that is, without land use and urban planning documents, on a land plot that is communal property, whereas taking into account the fact that the structure in question was built on a land plot that is communal property without appropriate

urban planning documents, including by violating the community's right of ownership over the land plot, Pavel Ghavazyan could not have had a reasonable belief that he had purchased a legal new property created by Khosrov Hovhannisyan, over which ownership rights could be acquired. Pavel Ghavazyan, by purchasing a structure built without authorization in violation of the law, realized or could have (was obliged to) realize the risk of loss of the expenses incurred by him, which cannot lead to the legal consequence of causing damage and compensation. Regarding the argument that the structure subject to the Yerevan Mayor's Decision N 1911-A dated April 13, 2026, was registered, it does not endow the person who carried out the unauthorized construction or their successor with legal rights over the unauthorized structure, and the alleged registration and alleged operation permit (not submitted with the appeal) do not change the legal status of the building and do not transform it into property subject to protection by force of law.

According to Part 1 of Article 37 of the Law "On Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings," the administrative body is obliged to ensure a multifaceted, full, and objective discussion of the factual circumstances, revealing all circumstances of the case, including those in favor of the participants of the proceedings.

According to Part 1 of Article 42 of the Law "On Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings," the administrative body evaluates as evidence in administrative proceedings the explanations, testimonies, expert conclusions, documents, materials, objects available in the case, as well as those circumstances which, in its discretion, that body considers suitable and necessary for the disclosure and evaluation of the factual circumstances of the case.

According to Part 1 of Article 43 of the Law "On Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings," in the relationship between a person and an administrative body, the burden of proof is borne by:

1. the person, in the case of the existence of factual circumstances favorable to them;
2. the administrative body, in the case of the existence of factual circumstances unfavorable to the person.

The provision of point "a" of Part 1 of Article 43 of the Law "On Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings" applies to the proof of the validity of the claim presented in the application.

Based on the above and taking into account that the Yerevan Mayor's Decision N 1911-A dated April 13, 2026, and the actions aimed at its execution have not been recognized as unlawful in the manner prescribed by law, and also that no evidence substantiating the claims was submitted with the Appeal or during the hearings of the proceedings, the examination of the Appeal did not prove that damage was caused to Pavel Ghavazyan as a result of the Yerevan Mayor's Decision N 1911-A dated April 13, 2026, or the actions aimed at the execution of its requirement, or that the Yerevan Mayor's Decision N 1911-A dated April 13, 2026, or the Yerevan

the circumstances of a causal link between the actions of the municipality and the alleged damage, as well as the assessment of the amount of the alleged damage, the circumstance that the alleged damage is a direct, immediate and unavoidable consequence of Yerevan Mayor's Decision N 1911-A of April 13, 2026, or actions aimed at its implementation, has not been proven, therefore, guided by Article 10, Part 2, Article 17, Article 135, Article 172, Part 1, Article 173, Article 188 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, Article 37, Part 2 of the Law "On Normative Legal Acts", Articles 37, 42, 43, 61, 75, Article 76, Part 1, "a" of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", Articles 95, 96.

I DECIDED

1. To reject in full Pavel Ghavazyan's complaint N D-73698-26 of July 15, 2026, requesting to invalidate Yerevan Mayor's Decision N 1911-A of April 13, 2026, and to compensate for the damage.
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: ARMEN PAMBUKHCHYAN

X Signed by: PAMBUKHCHYAN ARMEN 3611840246