Armenia’s Administrative Court on September 18 invalidated a May 29, 2026 decision by the Compulsory Enforcement Service that had imposed an obligation on Masyatsotn Diocese cleric Ter Abraham Martirosyan to carry out certain actions at Ardshinbank. The ruling was issued in case No. VD/9214/05/26 by Judge Ruzanna Azroyan.
The update was reported by Ara Zohrabyan, rector of the Academy of Advocacy of Armenia and a defense lawyer. According to him, the obligation had been imposed earlier within interim measures applied by Judge Edgar Hovhannisyan at the request of former head of the Masyatsotn Diocese Arman Saroyan. Under that measure, the enforcement officer had required Ter Abraham to assist, with his signature, banking transactions of the diocese carried out by Arman Saroyan.
Zohrabyan said Ter Abraham Martirosyan had refused to perform what he considered an unlawful act and had challenged the decision in court. The Administrative Court ultimately upheld his claim against the Compulsory Enforcement Service.
According to the published account, the judgment sets out several legal positions of broader importance. The court said enforcement proceedings cannot be used to expand either the substance of a dispute that has already been decided by a court or the range of persons to whom a judicial act is addressed. The role of the enforcement officer is to implement the court act within the limits in which it was issued, not to create new obligations or new debtors.
The court also found that the wording “other persons” in a judicial act does not grant the enforcement officer unlimited discretion to determine who falls within that category and then impose direct enforcement duties on them. Such a step requires a clear legal basis explicitly provided by law.
The ruling further states that if the meaning of a judicial act or writ of execution is unclear, the enforcement officer should seek clarification from the court that issued it rather than unilaterally broaden the scope of those bound by the act.
The court concluded that imposing such a duty on Ter Abraham Martirosyan amounted to the exercise of a power not предусмотрено законом and an expansion of the substance of the enforcement act. As a result, the enforcement officer’s decision could not be regarded as lawful or substantiated.
Zohrabyan said the judgment matters beyond this single case because it reaffirms the principle that a state body cannot create new obligations for an individual based solely on its own interpretation. He also recalled that criminal proceedings against the Catholicos of All Armenians and six bishops had been initiated on the basis of a report by the Compulsory Enforcement Service, specifically deputy chief enforcement officer Vahe Movsisyan, over alleged obstruction of the interim measure ordered by Judge Edgar Hovhannisyan.
