After the writ: restoring the period for presenting it for execution

The award and the later stage

Unibank obtained the Armenian Banks Union Financial Arbitration tribunal’s three-member award of 18 March 2016, No.02-002/01/16, against Mkrtich and Avetik Baboyan. On 11 November 2016 the state court recognised it as binding and issued writs. A separate dispute later arose over the period for presenting those writs for compulsory execution.

The case separates obtaining judicial permission to execute an award from using the resulting document. The bank sought restoration, arguing that delayed receipt of the writs was not its fault. Following several reviews, the lower courts refused. Cassation examined that refusal.

The missing evidence

The record contained a covering letter without a date or outgoing number. It lacked proof of postal dispatch, an acknowledgement of delivery and a reliable receipt date. The courts therefore could not assume that the creditor had timely possession of the documents and an actual opportunity to present them. The order’s date did not prove that the writs reached the bank that day.

Why the refusal was erroneous

Section 4 of the decision connects execution with effective judicial protection. The court must properly dispatch the issued documents. Missing proof that it performed that duty cannot be used against the creditor by making it bear the negative consequences of the court’s own deficient dispatch.

The finding rested on the particular record. It does not mean that every assertion of non-receipt automatically restores a period. The court file, postal records, actual issue or delivery evidence and the creditor’s procedural conduct matter.

Cassation itself restored the period

Operative paragraph1 allowed the complaint, quashed and varied the appellate decision of 19 February 2021, granted the bank’s application and restored the presentation period. There was no remittal: no new facts required determination. The result restored a procedural opportunity for execution; it did not establish that money had actually been recovered.

Statutory edition and practical limits

The case applied the pre-1 April 2018 Judicial Acts Enforcement Law, including its former one-year period. That period is not a universal present-day Armenian rule. A current matter requires separate analysis of the legislation, transitions and type of period: seeking permission, presenting an enforcement document and restoration are different questions.