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.

In accordance with the provisions of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", a complaint review was carried out based on the application No. D-68659-26 of July 2, 2026, from Mkrtich Marikyan, addressed to the Yerevan City Hall.

Within the framework of the review of application No. D-68659-26 of July 2, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the Application), hearings were convened on July 22, 2026, to which Mkrtich Marikyan, who was duly notified (notification postal delivery number LO134251389AM), did not appear.

Having examined the Application and evaluated all the factual circumstances related to the subject of the Application, the following was revealed:

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

By application No. D-52441-26 of May 21, 2026, addressed to the Yerevan City Hall, Mkrtich Marikyan requested compensation for the damage caused by a tree falling on a "BMW" brand vehicle with registration number "PP 205 TP" parked at Charents Street No. 4, Yerevan, on April 13, 2026.

Mkrtich Marikyan submitted application No. D-52441-26 of May 21, 2026, on behalf of Khngianos Marikyan, but no power of attorney issued in the manner prescribed by law, establishing the authority to act on behalf of Khngianos Marikyan, Armenian translated copies of foreign language documents attached to the application, or a forensic expert opinion on the damaged car were submitted along with the application.

By the Decision of the Mayor of Yerevan N 3088-A dated June 22, 2026, the claim for compensation of damages submitted by application No. D-52441-26 dated May 21, 2026, was rejected.

In the Application submitted to Yerevan City Hall, Mkrtich Marikyan requested to review the Decision of the Mayor of Yerevan N 3088-A dated June 22, 2026, and compensate for the incurred damage; however, the Application was not accompanied by a power of attorney issued in the manner prescribed by law establishing the authority to act on behalf of Khngianos Marikyan, Armenian translated copies of the foreign language documents submitted with the application, or a traceological expert opinion of the damaged vehicle.

3. Grounds 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 1 of Article 75 of the Law "On Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings," the discussion of an administrative appeal is carried out in accordance with the provisions established 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 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 the exercise of discretionary power, also from the perspective of expediency.

The Decision of the Mayor of Yerevan N 3088-A dated June 22, 2026, was based on the circumstances that the fact of Mkrtich Marikyan being the owner of the "BMW" make vehicle with registration plate "PP 205 TP" was not proven and that a power of attorney issued in the manner prescribed by law to act on behalf of Khngianos Marikyan was not submitted, which served as sufficient grounds for the rejection of application No. D-52441-26 dated May 21, 2026.

According to Part 3 of Article 27 of the Law "On Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings," documents related to the implementation of administrative proceedings are drawn up, and the entire paperwork is carried out in Armenian. If the participants of the proceedings have submitted documents in another language, then at the request of the administrative body, they are obliged to also submit their Armenian translations performed in the manner prescribed by law.

According to Part 1 of Article 42 of the Law "On Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings," the administrative body in administrative proceedings as

proof evaluates the explanations, testimonies, expert opinions, documents, materials, items, as well as circumstances that the 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 case of favorable factual circumstances for him. 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 incorrect interpretation of the law; b) on the basis of forged documents or information, or if it is obvious from the submitted documents that another decision should have been adopted in essence; c) in a conflict of interest situation. The submitted Application did not substantiate the circumstance that the rights of citizen Mkrtich Marikyan were violated by decision N 3088-A of the Mayor of Yerevan dated June 22, 2026, nor was it substantiated that the appealed decision was adopted under conditions of any grounds leading to the invalidity of the administrative act, as defined by part 1 of Article 63 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure". According to part 1 of Article 76 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", when considering an administrative complaint regarding an administrative act, the administrative body that adopted the appealed administrative act is authorized to: a) satisfy the complaint 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 complaint, leaving the administrative act unchanged. Based on the above and guided by Articles 27, 42, 43, 69, 75 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure" and point "b" of part 1 of Article 76 of the same law, I DECIDED: 1. To reject the application N D-68659-26 of Mkrtich Marikyan dated July 2, 2026, addressed to Yerevan City Hall, and to leave unchanged decision N 3088-A of the Mayor of Yerevan dated June 22, 2026. 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 PAMBUKHCYAN X ARMEN PAMBUKHCYAN Signed by: PAMBUKHCHYAN ARMEN 3611840246