ARMENIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Mesrop Manukyan, Maria Petrosyan, Grigor Grigoryan and Anahit Sargsyan, MB Legal
5.5 Costs The general rule in Armenian litigation is that the los- ing party pays the costs of the winning party. This includes both “court costs” (state duties paid to the government) and “litigation expenses” (attorney fees, expert fees and witness travel costs). If a party is only partially successful, the costs are typically distributed proportionally based on the degree of success. State duties (court fees) are calculated as a percent- age of the claim amount. For example, in the first instance, the state duty for a monetary claim is typi- cally 3% of the amount sought. These fees must be paid at the time of filing, although the court can grant a deferral or reduction in cases of demonstrated finan- cial hardship. These costs are ultimately shifted to the defendant if the plaintiff prevails. 5.6 Assessment of Costs When awarding costs, the court conducts an assess- ment of necessity and reasonableness. The prevailing party must provide documentation, such as invoices and payment receipts, to prove that the expenses were actually incurred. The court will not award costs that it deems unnecessary or that were incurred through the party’s own procedural misconduct or delay. For attorney fees, the court has a high degree of dis- cretion. It looks at the volume of work, the number of hearings attended, and the complexity of the legal issues. The court may also take into account the conduct of the parties, potentially reducing an award if a party unnecessarily complicated the proceed- ings. This assessment is intended to strike a balance between fair compensation and preventing the “loser pays” rule from becoming a barrier to justice.
certain duties to prevent harm. The court has broad discretion to tailor the relief to the specific risks of the case. These remedies are available in all types of commer- cial disputes, from simple debt collections to complex corporate and intellectual property cases. To obtain relief, the applicant must show that there is a reason- able risk that the enforcement of a judgment will other- wise be impossible or difficult. The court evaluates the “proportionality” of the requested measure, ensuring that it does not cause undue harm to the defendant’s legitimate business activities. 6.2 Interim Relief to Support Arbitration and ADR Armenian courts have the legal authority to grant interim relief in support of arbitration, even if the arbi- tration is being held outside Armenia. This power is critical because arbitral tribunals often cannot act quickly enough to prevent the dissipation of assets, and they lack the State’s power to issue binding freez- ing orders. The procedure for obtaining such relief is the same as in standard litigation. Most interim relief in the mediation context is han- dled through the voluntary agreement of the parties rather than a court order. In addition, the Civil Proce- dure Code provides specific mechanisms that allow parties to secure their interests through preliminary interim measures even before a formal lawsuit is filed. This framework is particularly designed to incentivise the use of mediation in cases where it is a mandatory prerequisite for litigation, such as in certain family or insurance-related disputes. Any person has the right to apply to the court for preliminary interim measures to secure a claim they intend to bring in the future. In standard applications for preliminary interim meas- ures, the applicant is typically required to pay a sum into the court’s deposit account to cover potential damages the defendant might suffer if the claim is later found to be groundless (usually at least AMD500,000 for non-monetary claims). However, an applicant seeking preliminary interim relief in a case subject to mandatory mediation is exempt from providing this financial security deposit at the time of the application.
6. Interim Remedies 6.1 Availability of Interim Relief
Armenian courts provide a robust array of interim rem- edies designed to preserve the status quo and ensure that a future judgment can be executed. The most common measures include the attachment (freezing) of the defendant’s property or bank accounts, injunc- tions prohibiting the defendant from taking specific actions, and orders requiring the defendant to perform
20 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook