On April 16 of 2019, the Republic of Armenia Civil Court of Appeal satisfied the appeal filed by the Protection of Rights without Borders NGO.
For the protection of the citizen’s interests, on August 23 of 2018, Protection of Rights without Borders NGO filed an application to the Yerevan First Instance Court on the demand to confirm the fact having legal meaning, by which it was asked to confirm the fact of possessing the immovable property by the right to ownership.
The Court made a decision to reject the appeal with the justification, that “a demand to confirm the fact of possessing the immovable property by the right of ownership, meanwhile no evidence related to the mentioned evidence was presented”.
An appeal was filed against the verdict with the justification that the latter was made with material and judicial norms violation, mentioning that within the scope of the case investigation, the circumstance containing important information for the solution of the case was not detected and it was not possible to present all the necessary and the proper evidence to confirm the facts presented in the demand.
The Civil Court of Appeal made a decision to satisfy the appeal, discontinue the verdict and forward the case to the same court for examination. The Court of Appeal mentioned in its justifications, that:
Though the Court is not limited by the legal norms pointed by the individual involved in the case, their change, taking into consideration the characteristics of the case instituted upon the application, is supposed to have a necessity of implementation of the activities prescribed during the initial judicial sitting.
It was recorded by the Court of Appeal, that the examination of the case was carried out around the legal ground not mentioned by the applicant to have a clear understanding of the fact subject to proving. To enable the applicant to demonstrate predictable behavior related to gaining acceptable and related evidence, the Court did not carry out the activities prescribed by the law to detect the scope of the activities in case when the unfavorable threat for the party, in the given case the rejection of the application, can be considered as a consequence on not carrying out the obligation of proving.
The Court did not define the scope of the facts subject to proving, did not demand the relevant evidence in case as an outcomes of which not carrying out proper investigation within the scope of the pointed out by the applicant.