CLAIMANT WON COURT ACTION AGAINST "PAKAGITS" NEWSPAPER’S OWNER PROTESTS AGAINST INACTIVITY OF SERVICE OF COMPULSORY EXECUTION OF JUDICIAL ACTS

Noyan Tapan
Feb 07 2007

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 7, NOYAN TAPAN. The Service of Compulsory Execution
of Judicial Acts has not implemented any action for more than a month
in the direction of confiscating the property of the "Agap-Hrat"
LTD, the owner of the "Pakagits" (bracket) newspaper, according
to the court decision. Nerses Haroutiunian, the representative,
attorney of the claimant side stated about it at the February 6
press conference. In his words, the reason of the SCEJA inactivity
is inappropriate politicisation of the case by the "Agap-Hrat" LTD.

According to the contract on services singed between the "Agap-Hrat"
LTD and Daniel Tanian in 2004, the latter was obliged to give necessary
sum of money and territory to the company during a year, to pay for
all municipal services, etc.

The "Agap-Hrat" LTD in its turn was obliged to pay about 700 thousand
drams (about 1.9 U.S. dollars) monthly for those services. The
contract was ahead of time annulled on the initiative of the LTD,
the debt of the company made 7.35 mln drams which was not paid off,
and D.Tanian addressed to the court.

During the court examination he passed his right of demandant to
Martun Ivanian.

The claim was upheld by the Court of First Instance of the communities
of Erebuni-Nubarashen on December 14, 2006, the total sum of which,
joint with penalties, made 9.48 mln drams. The decision of the
Court of First Instance was not appealed by the respondent, and
the court verdict came into force in late January of this year. In
N.Haroutiunian’s words, though the company heads attempt to give
political implication to the case, it is simply of economic character
and has no relation with any party. In his words, Agapi Manukian,
the owner of the "Agap-Hrat" LTD attempts to avoid fulfillment of her
obligations by policizing the case. N.Haroutiunian mentioned that the
claimant side either will address to the court with a claim relating
to the SCEJA inactivity or will present an appeal relating to not
implementing the court verdict to the Prosecutor’s Office.