HY RU EN
Asset 3

Loading

End of content No more pages to load

Your search did not match any articles

Ararat Davtyan

9 More Victims of State Needs

Law enforcement officers visited Samvel Gharibyan's house, located behind the Astafyan Hotel complex, and advised the residents to vacate the premises on their own.

“This is the result of a guilty alliance between the Astafyan Hotel and City Hall. They collaborated and bribed the court to kick a family of nine out of their home,” said the mother of the family, Marieta Hakhverdyan.

Let us note that all our attempts to elicit comments from the management of the Astafyan Hotel were rejected by staff with replies of “They're not here, they haven't returned yet, we don't know when they will return,” and the like.

In 1995, Samvel Gharibyan, who has a second degree disability, and Marieta Hakhverdyan boughtApartment8in the building at5/1 Abovyan Street, with an area of roughly 30 square meters. The purchase deed was signed by Hakhverdyan, who then received a certificate of ownership from the state agency for real estate registration. The house also had an adjacent room which was illegal and not privatized. Gharibyan soon rebuilt the house and added a second floor, bringing the total number of rooms to nine. At almost the same time, construction started on the Astafyan complex and Gharibyan received an offer to exchange his house for another.

“They kept delaying that issue for months and did not deal with the problem in the end. They erected a wall right next to one of mine and closed off the door and window on the east side of my house,” recalled Gharibyan.

In 1998, the homeowners applied to City Hall seeking a certificate of ownership for the newly constructed section of the house but were rejected; moreover, the refusal was only oral. They applied again with the same request in 2005. This time a written rejection from City Hall was based on the decision that “the building was located within the city construction program zone.”

“We received the reply three months later. But there is a government decree which states that if there is no reply for a month, then the ownership of the building is considered to be granted automatically,” explained Gharibyan.

Hakhverdyan went to the Court of First Instance for the Kentron and Nork Marash Districts seeking to have the mayor's decision overruled. She says that in reply to a question from Judge Zhora Vardanyan, the Yerevan Department of Architecture and Construction stated that the house was not located in the zone of alienation. Despite this, the court rejected Hakhverdyan's request.

In May 2005, the Government issued a decree “regarding the alienation of 5/1Abovyan Street building in accordance with the needs of the state for the realization of a construction program.” Three months later, the mayor ratified the minutes of a session of the auction committee, according to which the rights to construction on 160 square meters of territory at the same address were awarded to the Astafyan Company, who had won the tender.

“The auction was conducted in our absence; we had not been told about it. That 160 square meters includes the part of house which we legally own. Only they know how that could have been allowed,” noted Gharibyan.

Marieta Hakhverdyan said that at around that time the executive director of the Astafyan complex, Ashot Nalbandyan, came to negotiate with them. He offered them a sum with which “it would barely have been possible to buy a one-room apartment in the city center.”

“We said that we weren't selling our house and that the case was still due in court. He said, ‘Whatever you do, you will not be able to gain ownership of the house. But if we buy it, we will manage to secure the certificate of ownership the very next day,'” recalled Marieta, “He said, ‘If you don't agree, we'll have the house listed as an area of state need. Don't come running to us then and say that it's being torn down.'”

One day the homeowners found out that the Yerevan Construction Program Implementation Office (CPIO) had gone to court demanding that their property be claimed as assets of state need and that they be sufficiently compensated. At the request of the plaintiff, the CPIO, the assets were assessed by Artin Enterprises ltd. The compensation proposed came to the dram equivalent of roughly US$ 25,000. Moreover, the compensation was offered only to Marieta Hakhverdyan, and nothing was proposed to her husband and co-owner of the house, Samvel Gharibyan. Hakhverdyan refused to sign a contract with the CPIO.

“Even if we assume that everything was done legally, why is it that 30 square meters of space in the city center suddenly cost only US$ 25,000?” asked Hakhverdyan and added, “We don't want money. At least let them provide us with a three-room apartment, so that the nine of us can settle there. They aren't taking into consideration that the family includes an infant and small children. They're just doing whatever they feel like.”

The CPIO demanded an expedited process and eventually won the case. The Court of Revision examined the case in the homeowners absence and upheld the decision.

 “I don't understand it. If Astafyan won the territory through a tender, then why is the CPIO getting involved and taking us to court and snatching our house from us under the pretext of ‘state needs'? Does Astafyan represent those ‘state needs'?” asked Gharibyan. Marieta Hakhverdyan added, “Because Dno and Tuko of the criminal world [The owner of the Astafyan complex Dnepr Avagyan and his son, Arsen – A. D.] have adopted a ‘law' that they will get this house for free. They have Mayor Zakharyan behind them today,” she said and continued, “We have been blockaded. We haven't had water throughout the winter, they've cut our pipes. They keep 10 dogs here. We're afraid to come and go, or to let our children walk outside…”

The homeowners have tried to protect their rights in courts of different levels – both at the Courts of First Instance as well as Revision. But they have failed. The Court of Cassation has also refused to admit the case on more than one occasion.

Gharibyan and Hakhverdyan have appealed to the President of the country, the Speaker of Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Ombudsman. They have also appealed to theConstitutional Court. The case will be examined there on March 27. Despite this, the enforcement officers of court decrees have not left them in peace. They have said that the money has already been transferred to the homeowner's account and that if the territory was not vacated on their next visit, they would get it cleared out “politely.”

“Let them come and beat us up, and then declare us dead. We won't leave our house,” said the homeowners.

Write a comment

If you found a typo you can notify us by selecting the text area and pressing CTRL+Enter