The Anti-Corruption Court of Appeal overturned the judgment of the Anti-Corruption Court dated 27 February 2026, which had dismissed the claim of the Prosecutor’s Office demanding confiscation of the property located at 10 Abovyan street.

On 30 April 2025, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a claim with the Anti-Corruption Court against “Local Developers” LLC (founders: Samvel Mayrapetyan and his wife, Gohar Kyalyan), demanding confiscation of the immovable property owned by the company and located at 10 Abovyan street, Yerevan.

The claim was based on the fact that the customer had failed to fulfil its obligation to invest AMD 150 million in the major renovation and restoration of the property within two years of the agreement entering into force.

By its decision of 14 May 2025, the Anti-Corruption Court refused to admit the claim for proceedings on the grounds that the dispute was subject to examination under administrative proceedings.

On 22 May 2025, the Prosecutor General’s Office submitted an appeal against the above-mentioned decision of the Anti-Corruption Court.

By its decision of 26 June 2025, the Anti-Corruption Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal submitted by the Prosecutor General’s Office, leaving in force the Anti-Corruption Court’s decision “On refusal to admit the claim for proceedings”, dated 14 May 2025.

On 4 July 2025, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a claim with the Administrative Court against “Local Developers” LLC, demanding confiscation of the immovable property owned by the company and located at 10 Abovyan street, Yerevan.

By its decision of 18 July 2025, the Administrative Court concluded that the dispute did not arise from public-law relations, since it concerned civil-law relations arising from a contract. Consequently, the case did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court, and the submitted claim was forwarded to the Anti-Corruption Court.

By its decision of 1 August 2025, the Anti-Corruption Court referred the case to the Court of Cassation for determination of jurisdiction.

By its decision “On resolution of the dispute concerning the jurisdiction of the case”, dated 14 August 2025, the Court of Cassation found that the above-mentioned case fell within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Court.

By the judgment of the Anti-Corruption Court dated 27 February 2026, the claim of the Prosecutor General’s Office was dismissed on the grounds that the limitation period had expired.

By its decision of 20 October 2026, the Anti-Corruption Court of Appeal granted the appeal submitted by the Prosecutor General’s Office. The Court found the Prosecutor’s Office’s position—that the limitation period should begin to run from the moment the Prosecutor’s Office became aware of the relevant circumstances—to be well-grounded. The Court reasoned that the prosecutor exercises an independent power, provided for by law, to bring claims for the protection of state interests and does not act on behalf of or in place of any other body. In other words, the failure of the body having primary competence to bring the relevant claim constitutes grounds for the emergence of the prosecutor’s exclusive power to bring such a claim. However, this does not mean that the prosecutor assumes the procedural status of that body, since the Prosecutor’s Office’s procedural status derives directly from the exclusive power vested in it by law to bring claims for the protection of the property interests of the State or the community.

Thus, the case was referred to the Anti-Corruption Court for a new examination.

It should be recalled that, based on the prosecutor’s report, criminal proceedings were initiated by the Anti-Corruption Committee under part 2 of Article 308 (abuse of official powers) (two counts) and part 2 of Article 315 (failure to take measures in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law to suspend and prevent the unauthorised occupation of land plots owned by the State or a community, as well as the unauthorised construction of buildings and structures) (two counts) of the Criminal Code adopted on 18 April 2003. K.K., who served as Head of the State Property Management Department of the Republic of Armenia during the relevant period, was charged.