The Enforcement Service Delays or Fails to Notify Citizens of Decisions, Ombudsman States

People often find themselves in desperate situations due to improper notifications from the Enforcement Service of the Ministry of Justice. The Office of the Human Rights Defender of Armenia has addressed this issue.

The systemic legislative and practical problems related to proper notification of citizens within the framework of enforcement proceedings remain unresolved. Specifically, complaints have been raised, both in 2020 and prior and subsequent years, regarding the failure to notify individuals about enforcement proceedings initiated against them, the imposition of restrictions on their property and funds, and other decisions made by the enforcement officer. These individuals often learn of such matters when they attempt to settle their obligations with a bank or make a transfer, only to discover that enforcement proceedings and restrictions have already been applied.

Complaints have also been voiced about delayed notifications or a complete lack of notifications regarding decisions made by the Enforcement Service. In response to these concerns, the Enforcement Service clarified that as of February 1, 2021, it has signed a contract with HayPost for the provision of postal services concerning "Hybrid Post." Given the existence of this contract, the Enforcement Service does not maintain statistics on delayed or unnotified communications.

The enforcement officer sends their decisions and notifications in accordance with the prescribed procedure, whereby parties are considered duly notified when such decisions are published on the official website for public notifications in the Republic of Armenia. This raises concerns, as under the current regulations, the Enforcement Service does not keep relevant statistics to assess the effectiveness of the system under the operational conditions of the aforementioned contract concerning the proper delivery of postal communications by HayPost.

Considering that decisions made by the enforcement officer are sent by regular postal delivery and not by registered mail, the proper notification of individuals about these decisions becomes even more problematic in the absence of state oversight. When decisions and notifications are sent by regular mail, proof of sending to the addressee is attached to the enforcement proceedings. According to the specified articles, when sending decisions and notifications by ordinary mail, the enforcement officer is only obliged to attach evidence of sending to the addressee and has no obligation to provide proof of the addressee receiving the letter.

This creates issues as there are instances when addressees do not receive the letters because they may no longer reside at the registered address, are absent for a time, or for other reasons. Consequently, this infringes on an individual's right to be heard and to be informed of documents, as they are deprived of the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the documents in an administrative procedure and express themselves regarding the circumstances discussed in the administrative proceeding.

This issue has been addressed in the Defender's annual reports for 2019 and 2020. From the above, it follows that the most effective way to send postal communications regarding the decisions and notifications of the enforcement officer is by registered mail, where the enforcement officer is required to attach evidence of receipt by the addressee. However, under current regulations, this practice is only applied in cases where the timing of actions in enforcement proceedings depends on the receipt of a respective decision or notification.

Additionally, it is currently important to address the issue of not all decisions of the enforcement officer being published on the official website for public notifications, which has also been highlighted in the Defender's annual reports for 2018-2019. It is worth noting that these annual reports raised concerns about the lack of publication of decisions to suspend enforcement proceedings and decisions regarding the sale of property via compulsory electronic auction on the website azdarar.am.

The Defender has proposed aligning the legal application practices developed in the Enforcement Service with the existing legislative regulations to ensure that all decisions made by the enforcement officer within the framework of enforcement proceedings are published on the azdarar.am website. However, periodic studies conducted on azdarar.am throughout 2020 have shown that only the aforementioned decisions have predominantly been published, indicating that the issue continues to be relevant.

The current state of affairs is condemnable, as it places individuals in a desperate situation. It is a serious issue causing difficulties for those affected, yet it remains unresolved.