MAYOR OF YEREVAN

DECISION

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

ON REJECTING THE APPLICATION

1. Description of the issue resolved by the decision:

Based on application No. D-68971-26 dated July 2, 2026, from Vahe Sargsyan, legal representative of Salvator Sargsyan, addressed to Yerevan City Hall, administration has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings".

Within the framework of the administration, hearings were convened on July 20, 2026, which were attended and participated in by Vahe Sargsyan, legal representative of Salvator Sargsyan (hereinafter also referred to as the Applicant).

Having examined application No. D-68971-26 dated July 2, 2026, from Vahe Sargsyan, legal representative of Salvator Sargsyan, the protocol of July 20, 2026, regarding the hearings conducted within the framework of the administration, as well as all factual circumstances related to the case, the following has been ascertained:

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

By application No. D-68971-26 dated July 2, 2026 (hereinafter also referred to as the Application), addressed to Yerevan City Hall, as well as by the position expressed during the hearings of the proceedings, the Applicant, taking as a basis the facts described in the Application, demanded compensation for the damage caused by the illegal administrative acts and the inaction of officials, which were declared invalid by decision No. OA-3 of December 22, 2025, of the authorized official of Yerevan City Hall "On declaring invalid the decisions "On imposing administrative penalties"", amounting to 9,115,000 (nine million one hundred fifteen thousand) AMD.

According to the facts stated in the Application, significant property and non-property damage was caused to Salvator Sargsyan and Vahe Sargsyan as a result of the illegal administration of Yerevan City Hall and the subsequent obvious inaction, which is expressed in the following:))

1. property damage (complete deprivation of the car), i.e., damage caused by the impossibility of using the car for 207 days, which amounts to 3,105,000 (three million one hundred five thousand) AMD,
2. property damage (partial restrictions), i.e., damage caused by maintaining restrictions on the car for 100 days, which amounts to 1,000,000 (one million) AMD,
3. direct property damage and other actual expenses, i.e., damage in the form of towing service fees, the cost of replacing a damaged battery, which amounts to 260,000 (two hundred sixty thousand) AMD,
4. additional expenses, i.e., damage in the form of consultations, document preparation, and other household expenses related to the given situation, which amounts to 750,000 (seven hundred fifty thousand) AMD,
5. non-property (moral) damage, i.e., damage caused by 21 (twenty-one) illegal decisions made against a minor, seizure of property, and the resulting deep psychological shock experienced by the child, depriving the father (single), who is a guardian of three minor children (one of whom suffers from autism) and has a group 2 disability, of a vitally necessary vehicle, as well as the severe psychological torment and loss of time endured by the single parent for more than 300 days through various court instances due to the inaction shown by officials of the Yerevan City Hall, which amounts to 4,000,000 (four million) AMD.
   By the decision of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia dated December 9, 2025, administrative case No. VD/11376/05/25 accepted the claim of Vahe Sargsyan, legal representative of Salvator Sargsyan, against the Yerevan City Hall, regarding the demand to declare all decisions made by the Yerevan City Hall against the minor Salvator Vahei Sargsyan null and void and to eliminate their consequences.
   By decision No. OA-3 dated December 22, 2025, of the authorized official of the Yerevan City Hall, "On declaring invalid the decisions "On imposing administrative penalties"", decisions No. V-0288462, No. V-0302775, No. V-0309402, No. V-0311776, No. V-0316914, No. V-0317331, No. V-0318829, No. V-0321750, No. V-0458189, No. V-0478843, No. V-0517772, No. V-0296129, No. VT-0185624, No. VT-0193723, No. VT-0213146, No. VT-0354489, No. VT-0371149, No. VT-0375596, No. VT-0389143, No. VT-0516079, No. VT-0409406 made against Salvator Sargsyan were declared invalid. The basis for the invalidity of the mentioned decisions was the circumstance that Salvator Sargsyan had not reached the age of sixteen at the time of committing the administrative offense provided for in Article 124.7 of the RA Code on Administrative Offenses, and therefore was not subject to administrative liability.

The proceedings of administrative case No. VD/11376/05/25 were terminated by the decision of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia dated January 19, 2026. The Applicant did not submit evidence substantiating the claim for compensation for damages, either with the Application or during the proceedings. 3. Grounds for adopting the Decision: According to Article 14, Part 1, Point 10 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, the protection of civil rights is carried out by compensating for damages. According to Article 95, Part 1 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure," damages caused to individuals as a result of administration carried out by administrative bodies are subject to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the seventh section of the same law. 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 them, unless a smaller amount of compensation for damages is provided for by law or contract. According to Article 17, Part 2 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, damages are the expenses of the person whose right has been violated, which they have incurred or must incur to restore the violated right, the loss or damage of their property (actual damage), lost income that that person would have received under normal conditions of civil circulation if their right had not been violated (lost profit), as well as non-pecuniary damage. In the case under consideration, based on the content of the claim presented in the Application and the factual circumstances underlying it, it is subject to clarification whether the Applicant has substantiated that: 1) As a result of decisions No. V-0288462, No. V-0302775, No. V-0309402, No. V-0311776, No. V-0316914, No. V-0317331, No. V-0318829, No. V-0321750, No. V-0458189, No. V-0478843, No. V-0517772, No. V-0296129, No. VT-0185624, No. VT-0193723, No. VT-0213146, No. VT-0354489, No. VT-0371149, No. VT-0375596, No. VT-0389143, No. VT-0516079, No. VT-0409406 "On Imposing Administrative Penalty" (hereinafter referred to as "Decisions") made against Salvador Sargsyan, the Applicant suffered damages in the amount of 9,115,000 (nine million one hundred fifteen thousand) AMD, 2) The claim for compensation for damages in the amount of 9,115,000 (nine million one hundred fifteen thousand) AMD presented in the Application represents a real, necessary, and reasonable claim, 3) The alleged damage in the amount of 9,115,000 (nine million one hundred fifteen thousand) AMD is a direct, immediate, and unavoidable consequence of the Decisions, 4) There is a causal link between the invalidity of the Decisions and the alleged damage in the amount of 9,115,000 (nine million one hundred fifteen thousand) AMD. From the substantive analysis of the legal norms defined in Article 17, Part 2 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, it follows that

The legislator has considered as damage the expense incurred to restore the violated right, the loss or damage of property (actual damage), and the unrealized income (lost profit). Therefore, within the framework of considering the claim presented in the Application, it is subject to clarification whether the damage presented by the Applicant corresponds to the definition of any type of damage provided for by the cited legal norm. The claim for compensation for damages presented in the Application is based on Decision N OA-3 of December 22, 2025, of the authorized official of the Yerevan City Hall, "On invalidating the decisions on imposing administrative penalties," by which the Decisions were invalidated. It follows from the content of the Application that the Applicant's general position is that the claimed damage arose as a result of the Decisions being made in violation of the law and being submitted for compulsory execution, as the Applicant suffered damage from April 19, 2025, to November 11, 2025, which manifested itself in the impossibility of using the car, from November 11, 2025, to February 19, 2026, suffered damage in the form of maintaining restrictions on the car (actual damage), throughout the entire process suffered damage in the form of expenses incurred for the protection of violated rights and non-pecuniary (moral) damage. According to Article 96 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure," compensation for damages is not carried out unless 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, with the exception of 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 caused damage, in particular, it has recorded 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 fault of the debtor. Moreover, in the absence of any of the mentioned conditions, the damage is not subject to compensation (see, Decision of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia dated 13.02.2009 in case N HCD3/0016/02/08 of Natalia Hakobyan against Vardan Hayrapetyan). The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, referring to the legislative regulations of damage compensation, 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 of property, non-receipt of income (lost profit). Unlawful, illegal 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 causal link necessary for compensation for damages is not present. (See the decision of October 4, 2013, in case No. EKD/2600/02/10, Nelly Mkrtchyan v. "Yerevan Hotel" CJSC).": The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, addressing the issue of compensation for damages caused by unlawful administration, in a previous decision stated that for a claim for compensation for damages resulting from 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, and only then is the person obliged to first apply to the administrative body that caused the damage, and in case of full or partial rejection of the claim for compensation by that body or failure to consider the application, the administrative act, action, or inaction may be appealed through supervisory or judicial procedure (see the decision of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia of December 3, 2010, in administrative case No. VD/3280/05/09). The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia, in its decision of December 26, 2016, in administrative case No. VD/1761/05/14, provided the following clarification: "Thus, the conditions for the state's responsibility 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 legally significant causal link between the violation of the administrative bodies' obligations and the causation of damage. In other words, recognizing the administration as unlawful does not yet mean that the person suffered the damage precisely as a result of the administration; it is necessary that there be a direct causal link between the administration and the damage caused. The issue of causal link must be subject to separate evaluation in each specific case, and in determining its existence, the key idea should be that a causal link can only be spoken of when the occurrence of damage is an inevitable and direct result of unlawful administration. Therefore, a causal link may exist between unlawful administration and the damages incurred if the occurrence of damage is an objectively necessary and direct result of the administration carried out. If the negative consequences could have arisen even without unlawful administration (and in cases provided by law, even lawful administration), then there is no causal link between them. Based on the foregoing, 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 part 4 of Article 409 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, when determining lost profit, the measures taken by the creditor to obtain it and the preparations made for that purpose are taken into account. The Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia has addressed the interpretation of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia regarding lost profit in its previous decisions, in particular, noting that lost profit is the income that the owner would have received under normal conditions of civil circulation if his right had not been violated. The existence of lost profit, i.e., the real possibility of receiving income in the absence of a violation of a person's right, is a matter subject to independent evaluation in each case, during which the specifics of the given case must be taken into account. In particular, to determine the existence of lost profit, first of all, the status of the corresponding property in civil circulation before the violation of the right, or the simultaneous existence of the owner's real intention and possibility regarding the methods of disposing of that property must be taken into account (see the decision of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia dated 30.03.2007, case No. 3-691(VD) on the claim for compensation for damages by Julieta Petrosyan, Karen Davtyan and Arman Davtyan against Tevos Safaryan). In the mentioned decision, the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia also noted the following: "The Court of Cassation has established in its precedent law that when determining lost profit, real intention must be combined with real possibility. This also stems from point 4 of Article 409 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, according to which, when determining lost profit, the measures taken by the creditor to obtain it and the preparations made for that purpose are taken into account. ... The Court of Cassation finds that when calculating lost profit, the courts must take into account that lost profit is the income that the person would have received under normal conditions of civil circulation if his right had not been violated." The applicant did not present evidence that the claimed amount of 3,105,000 AMD represents lost profit, as the actual existence of damage in the form of lost profit was not substantiated, and the simultaneous existence of the intention and possibility to rent out the car in civil circulation before the violation of the right was not proven. The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (for example, the judgments in the complaints Harutyunyan v. Armenia No. 36549/03, Galstyan v. Armenia No. 26986/03, Mayzit v. Russia No. 63378/00) have provided certain criteria for claims for compensation for damages subject to compensation.

Specifically, the claim for damages must be real, necessary, and reasonable.

Real: means that the person submitting the claim must provide reasonable documentary evidence that the damage actually exists; the claim for damages cannot be based on assumptions, speculations, and possible or impossible future events and facts.

Necessary: means that the person submitting the claim must prove that this compensation is indeed necessary to restore their violated rights and, most importantly, must show the causal link between the damages suffered and the violation of their rights.

Reasonable: means that the amount of the claim for damages must be commensurate with those damages, which, of course, can only be proven by clear documentary means, excluding assumptions and speculations.

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, in administrative proceedings, evaluates as evidence the explanations, testimonies, expert opinions, documents, materials, items, as well as those circumstances that, in its discretion, that body deems suitable and necessary for the disclosure and evaluation of the factual circumstances of the case.

According to Article 43, Part 1, Sub-point "a" 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 individual in the presence of factual circumstances favorable to them.

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 validity of the claim submitted by the application.

Of the 9,115,000 (nine million one hundred fifteen thousand) AMD claimed in the application, the Applicant claimed 3,105,000 AMD as lost profit, 1,000,000 AMD and 260,000 AMD as actual damage, 750,000 AMD as expenses incurred for the protection of violated rights, and 4,000,000 AMD as moral damage, however, no written evidence regarding the occurrence of the mentioned damages and their calculation has been submitted by the Applicant.

Evaluating the mentioned circumstances, it can be stated that the Applicant has not submitted relevant evidence in the proceedings carried out on the basis of the Application,

permit and reliable documentary evidence, by the examination of which it would be possible to consider proven that as a direct, immediate and unavoidable consequence of the adoption of Decisions, as unlawful administrative acts, the Applicant suffered damage in the form of lost profit in the amount of 3,105,000 AMD for the period from April 19, 2025, to November 11, 2025, in the amount of the daily rent of the car, suffered actual damage in the amount of 1,000,000 AMD and 260,000 AMD, incurred expenses in the amount of 750,000 AMD for the purpose of protecting violated rights, and suffered moral damage in the amount of 4,000,000 AMD as a result of the actions (inaction) expressed by the unlawful administration of the administrative body. According to Part 1 of Article 104 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure", in cases where non-pecuniary damage is caused by unlawful administration by restricting the freedom of a natural person, violating his inviolability, the inviolability of his home, the inviolability of his personal or family life, or by defaming his honor, good name or dignity, that person has the right to demand compensation in monetary terms or the elimination of the consequences that have arisen, in an amount equivalent to the non-pecuniary damage caused. According to Part 1 of Article 162.1 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, within the meaning of the same Code, non-material damage is physical or mental suffering caused by a decision, action or inaction that infringes on material or non-material goods belonging to a person by birth or by force of law, or violates his personal property or non-property rights. Part 2 of Article 162.1 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia stipulates that a person, and in case of his death or incapacity, his spouse, parent, adopter, child, adopted child, guardian, trustee, has the right to demand compensation for non-material damage caused through judicial procedure, if the preliminary investigation body, the prosecutor or the court has established that as a result of the decision, action or inaction of a state or local self-government body or its official, the following fundamental rights of that person, guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and the Convention "On the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", have been violated: 1) the right to life. 2) the right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 3) the right to personal liberty and security. 4) the right to a fair trial. 5) the right to respect for private and family life, the inviolability of the home.

6. the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to freely express one's opinion.
7. the right to freedom of assembly and association.
8. the right to effective legal protection.
9. the right to property.

In the case under consideration, the Applicant has not submitted proper evidence, by the examination of which it would be possible to consider proven the circumstances of having suffered non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 4,000,000 AMD and that it was a direct, immediate and unavoidable consequence of the Decisions recognized as invalid by the administrative body.

Thus, as a result of a comprehensive, complete and full examination of the evidence available in the proceedings carried out on the basis of the Application and the arguments presented orally by the applicant, the claim presented in the Application is deemed unproven and unsubstantiated.

As for the request submitted by Vahe Sargsyan, legal representative of Salvator Sargsyan, within the framework of the Application proceedings, to provide the job descriptions of the relevant officials of the Yerevan City Hall staff, it is not a request directly related to the subject of the Application and interconnected with the claim for compensation for damages, therefore it would be legally justified to consider that request on the basis of a separate application.

Based on the foregoing and taking into account that relevant, admissible and credible evidence has not been submitted by Vahe Sargsyan, legal representative of Salvator Sargsyan, in substantiation of the lawfulness of the claim presented in the Application, as well as taking into account that the administration carried out on the basis of the Application has not proven that damage in the amount of 9,115,000 (nine million one hundred fifteen thousand) AMD was suffered as a result of the Decisions recognized as invalid by Decision No. OA-3 of December 22, 2025, of the competent official of the Yerevan City Hall "On recognizing as invalid the decisions "On imposing an administrative penalty"", the existence of a causal link between the invalidity of the Decisions and the alleged damage in the amount of 9,115,000 (nine million one hundred fifteen thousand) AMD, the circumstance that the alleged damage was a direct, immediate and unavoidable consequence of the Decisions has not been proven, therefore, guided by Articles 14, 17, 162.1 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, Articles 37, 42, 43, 95, 96 and 104 of the Law "On the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure".

I DECIDED

1. To reject the application No. D-68971-26 of July 2, 2026, of Vahe Sargsyan, legal representative of Salvator Sargsyan, addressed to the Yerevan City Hall, regarding the claim for compensation for damages.

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.

TIGRAN AVINYAN