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

ON INVALIDATING DECISION N 2761-A OF THE YEREVAN MAYOR DATED MAY 29, 2026

1. Description of the issue resolved by the decision:

Based on report N/34818-26 dated June 2, 2026, of 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 9, 2026.

Within the framework of the administrative proceedings, a hearing was convened on August 5, 2026, at 15:00, of which the person involved in the proceedings, Diana Tamrazyan, was duly notified (notification postal delivery number AL0134658035AM).

The person involved in the proceedings, Diana Tamrazyan, did not appear at the hearing convened on August 5, 2026, at 15:00.

Having examined report N/34818-26 dated June 2, 2026, of the Head of the Architecture and Urban Development Department of the Yerevan Municipality Staff, and having assessed the factual circumstances and evidence related to the subject of the proceedings, the following was revealed:

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

By the judgment (hereinafter referred to as the Judgment) issued by the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia on June 16, 2023, in administrative case N VD/0233/05/23, which entered into legal force, the Yerevan Municipality was obliged to provide a favorable administrative act, deemed adopted by force of law, regarding the legalization of the unauthorized structure located in the courtyard of building N 3, Gay Avenue, Yerevan.

In fulfillment of the requirement of the Judgment, Decision N 2761-A of the Mayor of Yerevan dated May 29, 2026, was adopted, by point 1 of which the unauthorized structure with the functional purpose of a garage, built on a land plot with a total area of 19.68 sq.m. located at Gay Avenue N 3/10, was considered the property of the city of Yerevan and was recognized as legal.

DECISION OF THE MAYOR OF YEREVAN

According to report N/34818-26 dated June 2, 2026, of the Head of the Department of Architecture and Urban Development of the Yerevan Municipality Staff, the land plot burdened with an arbitrarily constructed building (garage) located in the courtyard of building N 3, Gay Avenue, Yerevan, is included in the zone of common use areas with the conventional signs of the General Plan of Yerevan, approved by decision N 204-N of September 10, 2024, of the Yerevan City Council. However, based on the requirements of the Decision, on May 29, 2026, Decision N 2761-A of the Mayor of Yerevan "On the Legalization of an Arbitrary Construction" was made.

3. Justifications for making 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 those actions for which they are empowered 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 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.

According to Article 42, Part 1 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 those circumstances that the body deems suitable and necessary for the disclosure and evaluation of the factual circumstances of the case.

According to Article 43, Part 1, "b" of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", in the relations between an individual and an administrative body, the burden of proof lies with the administrative body in the presence of factual circumstances unfavorable to the individual. According to Part 2 of the same article, if in the case provided for in Article 1, Part 1, "a" of this article, the individual can become aware of the data (information) regarding the factual circumstances being examined by the administrative body exclusively through that administrative body, then the burden of proof is placed on that administrative body.

According to Article 48, Part 1 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 established by law as a result of proceedings initiated on the basis of an application submitted in compliance with the requirements of Article 31, Part 1, "a", "d", and "e" of this law, then the administrative act is considered adopted, and the applicant can proceed to

to the exercise of the corresponding right, except for 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 make 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 can proceed to the exercise of his requested right, an exception to which rule is 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 force of law: "... The operation of the legal fiction defined by Article 48 of the RA Law "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 finds 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 the ground for nullity of the administrative act provided for in point "d" of part 1 of Article 62 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", namely, 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 in point "d" of part 1 of Article 62 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure". As for the grounds for possible invalidity of the requested administrative act, as well as other grounds for possible nullity, their existence is not subject to examination by the court when determining the operation of the legal fiction, and the administrative body, being endowed with the authority to review the lawfulness of the administrative act adopted by it, in the manner prescribed by law

can make the grounds for invalidity of the administrative act a subject of discussion and give them a corresponding legal assessment. In this case, within the framework of administrative case No. VD/0233/05/23, only the issue of the nullity of the requested administrative act was examined, and the issue of the legality of the administrative act requested by the applicant, from the perspective of identifying the grounds for invalidity, was not a subject of discussion. The cassation court of the Republic of Armenia has expressed a position in its precedent decisions 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 the administrative act, has provided that in some cases, non-compliance with the requirement for certainty of the administrative act leads to the administrative act being null and void. 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 points "a" and "g" of part 1 of Article 62 of the RA Law "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 and void established by the legislator are not present, an administrative act that does not comply with the requirement of legal certainty cannot be considered null and void, but rather it can be recognized as invalid. The Cassation Court 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 the person's application in the manner and within the timeframe established by law, then the requested favorable administrative act is considered "de jure" adopted, which means that the administrative procedure initiated on the basis of the application is considered concluded, 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 in the manner prescribed by law and a solution has been provided to it." (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 unlawful administrative act that is not null and void is invalid if it was adopted in violation of the law, including as a result of incorrect application or incorrect interpretation of the law. According to point 6 of part 1 of Article 60 of the Land Code of the Republic of Armenia, it is prohibited to transfer to citizens and legal entities by right of ownership those land plots that are state and community property and are common use lands in settlements (squares, streets, roads, riverbanks, parks, gardens, beaches, and other common use areas).

According to sub-point "b" 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 Structures," unauthorized structures 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. Based on the above and taking as a basis the report N/34818-26 of June 2, 2026, of the Head of the Department of Architecture and Urban Development of the Staff of the Yerevan Municipality, and guided by Article 60 of the Land Code of the Republic of Armenia, sub-point "b" of point 2 of the Government of the Republic of Armenia's Decision N 912-N of May 18, 2006, Articles 43 and 58, and sub-point "a" of part 1 of Article 63 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure," I DECIDED: 1. To recognize as invalid Yerevan Mayor's Decision N 2761-A of May 29, 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 PAMBUKHCHYAN X ARMEN PAMBUKHCHYAN Signed by: PAMBUKHCHYAN ARMEN 3611840246