October 23, 2026 | Case No. ՀԿԴ/0060/02/26
On October 23, 2026, the Anti-Corruption Court of the Republic of Armenia granted the motion filed by Edgar Ayvazyan, attorney at LSA Law Firm, seeking the application of the statute of limitations, and dismissed in its entirety the claim brought by the Kotayk Regional Prosecutor’s Office.
The Prosecutor’s Office sought to invalidate a public auction held in 2007 concerning a 0.5-hectare land plot in the Garni community, as well as the subsequent sale and purchase agreements concluded in 2007, 2009, 2017, and 2023, and the corresponding state registrations of ownership rights.
Had the claim been upheld, the ownership rights of LSA’s client, E. T.-A., who acquired the land plot in 2023, would have been at risk.
Legal Position of LSA’s Attorney
During the proceedings, attorney Edgar Ayvazyan filed a motion requesting dismissal of the claim on the grounds that the applicable limitation period had expired.
The defense’s principal argument was that the Prosecutor’s Office had been aware of the alleged irregularities in the disputed auction since June 2024 and, by November 2024, already possessed the relevant factual information and evidence.
In particular, criminal proceedings concerning the same circumstances had been initiated in 2024, during which a preliminary investigation was conducted. Those proceedings concluded with decisions not to initiate criminal prosecution and to terminate the proceedings.
Accordingly, the defendant argued that the Prosecutor’s Office could not establish December 2025, when additional information was obtained, as the starting point of the limitation period.
The Court’s Judgment
The Anti-Corruption Court of the Republic of Armenia agreed with the defendant’s arguments regarding the limitation period.
The Court determined that the claims were subject to a special one-year limitation period, which commenced on June 26, 2024, and expired on June 26, 2025.
However, the Prosecutor’s Office filed its claim only on March 26, 2026, after the statutory deadline had expired.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the Prosecutor’s Office’s claim in its entirety on the grounds that the limitation period had expired, without adjudicating the substantive legality of the disputed transactions.
The Court also ruled that the previously imposed interim measures securing the claim would be lifted once the judgment entered into legal force.
Case No.: ՀԿԴ/0060/02/26
Date of Judgment: October 23, 2026
LSA Attorney: Edgar Ayvazyan
The judgment may be appealed within one month from the date of its publication.
