The legal team of Russian–Armenian tycoon Samvel Karapetyan and the Armenian government have issued contradictory statements regarding an international arbitration ruling in favour of Karapetyan and his operation of the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA).
Karapetyan, who operates the ENA through his Tashir Group, won an urgent arbitration case against Yerevan regarding the company on 22 July at the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC Arbitration Institute).
Arshaluys Barseghyan
On Monday, the Armenian government issued a statement claiming that on 29 July Karapetyan and his associates appealed to the institute demanding that their ruling be supplemented with articles declaring that Armenia was legally obliged to comply with the ruling and to restore the status quo of the company’s management.
Karapetyan has also requested that Armenia be obliged to inform both the arbitration and his side ‘of all steps taken to comply’ with the ruling.
In their statement, the Armenian government said that the institute dismissed all of Karapetyan’s new appeals.
On the same day, Karapetyan’s side claimed the opposite, citing a decision issued not on 3 August, but on 4 August instead.
‘The emergency arbitration ruled not to examine the need to supplement its earlier decision, reaffirming that the decision it adopted on 22 July is already subject to mandatory and immediate execution by the government of [...] Armenia’, Karapetyan’s lawyers’ statement read.
When the institute issued its ruling in July, Kareptyan’s lawyers noted that its decisions were subject to ‘mandatory execution’ by the Armenian authorities. It ‘obliged’ Armenian authorities ‘to refrain from applying the provisions of the recently adopted’ legislative amendments that would allow the state to take over the ENA as well as ‘from further steps to seize’ the company.
The Armenian Parliament adopted a bill that would virtually allow the state to take over the company on 3 July by enabling the state to ‘intervene’ and oversee its administrations should the company fail to meet its obligations. The amendments were adopted following Karapetyan’s arrest on charges of making calls to overthrow the state. The government, however, has denied that the amendments and Karapetyan’s detention were related.
On 23 July, a day after the institute issued its ruling, the Armenian government stated that everyone is also obliged to ‘be guided by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia and international treaties that define the rules and procedures for the recognition and implementation of arbitration decisions’.
In turn, Armenia’s Justice Minister Srbuhi Galyan announced that the country’s domestic legislation and international conventions provided the possibility of not enforcing an international arbitration ruling ‘if it contradicts public order’.
Karapetyan’s family have said they submitted their second appeal to the institute on 29 July after Armenia hinted at its intent not to oblige the institute’s ruling. They also cited the Armenian government’s actions ‘aimed at the expropriation’ of the ENA. They requested that a supplement ‘provide additional clarification’ to Yerevan over its obligation to implement the 22 July ruling.
Arshaluys Barseghyan
