ARMENIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Mesrop Manukyan, Maria Petrosyan, Grigor Grigoryan and Anahit Sargsyan, MB Legal
application can be submitted, unless the act is subject to immediate execution. Once the writ of execution is issued, the Compul- sory Enforcement Service takes over, which involves the actual seizure of assets or garnishment of bank accounts. Under the Law on Enforcement, the Com- pulsory Enforcement Service is mandated to carry out actions within a “reasonable and most concise” timeframe. While specific durations depend on the complexity of asset tracing, the law now allows for streamlined electronic service through a “Personal Office” platform to reduce delays. The speed of this final step depends on the availability and liquidity of the defendant’s assets within Armenia. If the debtor fails to perform a non-monetary act, the court may also impose an “Astrente” (a recurring financial pen- alty) to incentivise swift compliance. In practice, despite the statutory targets, contested recognition cases often stretch to six months as courts manage heavy workloads and the complexi- ties of international notifications. 9.4 Grounds for Resisting Enforcement A party may resist the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment based on several procedural and substantive grounds: • lack of due process – evidence that the defendant was not properly notified of the foreign proceed- ings or was deprived of the opportunity to partici- pate; • public policy conflict – the judgment or its enforce- ment would manifestly contradict the public policy of the Republic of Armenia; • exclusive jurisdiction – the dispute falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Armenian courts, such as matters involving Armenian real estate; and • conflicting judgments – there is an existing Arme- nian judgment or a previously recognised foreign judgment on the same matter between the same parties. Arbitral Awards Grounds for resisting the enforcement of both domes- tic and foreign arbitral awards are strictly procedural and align with the New York Convention:
• party incapacity or invalidity – a party to the arbi- tration agreement was under some incapacity, or the agreement itself is invalid under the law; • improper notice – the party was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings; • tribunal exceeding mandate – the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration; • improper tribunal composition – the composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties; • non-arbitrability – the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of Armenia; and • public policy violation – the recognition or enforce- ment of the award would be contrary to the public policy of Armenia. As of 2026, Armenia has no specific legislation that exclusively regulates the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal field or in dispute resolution. Instead, AI applications are currently governed by general laws related to data protection, cybersecurity, the principles of a fair trial, and the professional ethics of advocates. The Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Judicial Council are actively monitoring global trends, and are in the early stages of developing ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks for AI. There is a strong emphasis on ensuring that any AI tools used in the judiciary do not compromise the independence of judges or the transparency of the legal process. 10.2 Impact AI is already having a notable impact on the prepara- tion phase of dispute resolution in Armenia. Many large law firms are using AI-driven tools for legal research, contract analysis and document review, which has significantly improved efficiency and reduced costs for clients. Within the court system, the Electronic System is lay- ing the groundwork for more advanced AI integration. 10. Dispute Resolution and AI 10.1 Regulation
25 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook