On 3 July 2026, the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia adopted Law No. HO-398-N amending the Administrative Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia. One of the provisions of the new law provides for the automatic termination of interim measures previously ordered by courts prohibiting the demolition of unauthorised constructions located on state- or municipally-owned land.

The Law enters into force on 30 August 2026.

The lawyers of LSA Law Firm consider that this regulation raises serious questions as to its compatibility with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. In the context of an administrative case currently pending before the Administrative Court, LSA has filed a motion requesting the Court to refer the issue of the constitutionality of the new regulation to the Constitutional Court.

What Has Changed Under the New Law?

Article 2(2) of Law No. HO-398-N provides that interim measures granted on the basis of applications submitted before the Law enters into force, which prohibit the demolition or dismantling of unauthorised constructions situated on state- or municipally-owned land, shall be deemed terminated upon the entry into force of the Law.

Accordingly, the provision does not apply only to new court proceedings.

The Law directly affects pending cases in which courts have already considered whether interim protection was necessary and have issued judicial acts temporarily prohibiting the demolition of the relevant property.

Once the Law enters into force, such interim measures will cease to have effect by operation of law, without any fresh judicial assessment of the circumstances of the individual case.

In LSA's view, it is precisely this mechanism that gives rise to a serious constitutional issue.

Can the Legislature Nullify the Effects of an Existing Judicial Act?

One of the key issues concerns compliance with the principle of separation of powers.

Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia provides that state power shall be exercised on the basis of the separation and balance of the legislative, executive and judicial powers.

Pursuant to Article 162 of the Constitution, justice in the Republic of Armenia is administered exclusively by the courts, and any interference with the administration of justice is prohibited.

An interim measure is the result of the exercise by a court of its procedural powers. The court assesses the circumstances of a particular case and determines whether certain actions should be temporarily restricted pending the final resolution of the dispute.

This therefore raises a fundamental question:

Can the legislature, by adopting a new law, automatically terminate an interim measure previously ordered by a court in a specific case?

LSA's position is that such regulation displays characteristics of legislative interference in the exercise of judicial power.

Where a court, having examined the circumstances of a particular case, has considered it necessary to temporarily prohibit the demolition of a property, the termination of that measure should take place through the judicial procedure prescribed by law and with due consideration of the circumstances of the case, rather than automatically as a consequence of a subsequent legislative amendment.

The Right to Effective Judicial Protection

The issue is not merely institutional.

Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia guarantees everyone the right to effective judicial protection of their rights and freedoms.

Article 75 of the Constitution requires the existence of legislative mechanisms and procedures necessary for the effective exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Interim measures constitute one of the key mechanisms for ensuring effective judicial protection.

Their purpose is, among other things, to prevent a situation in which, by the time a final judgment is delivered, the restoration of the infringed right has become impossible or excessively difficult.

This issue is particularly evident in disputes involving the demolition of immovable property.

Where an individual challenges actions or decisions that may result in the demolition of a property, and the court temporarily prohibits the demolition pending resolution of the dispute, the automatic termination of that prohibition may allow the property to be demolished before a final judicial decision is rendered.

If the court subsequently finds the individual's position to be well-founded, the property may by then no longer physically exist.

In such circumstances, judicial protection risks becoming merely formal: a person may ultimately succeed in the proceedings, while restoration of the situation existing prior to the violation of their rights may no longer be possible.

The Issue of Retroactive Effect

A separate constitutional issue concerns the temporal application of the Law.

Article 73 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia provides that laws and other legal acts which worsen a person's legal position shall not have retroactive effect.

However, the new regulation expressly applies to interim measures ordered on the basis of applications submitted before the new Law enters into force.

Persons who obtained judicial protection prior to the adoption of the new Law could legitimately expect the relevant judicial act to remain effective in accordance with the applicable procedural framework.

The new Law changes the legal consequences of procedural acts that have already taken place and directly worsens the position of persons in whose favour a court had previously ordered interim protection.

In LSA's view, this provides grounds for referring to the Constitutional Court the question of whether such regulation complies with the constitutional prohibition on giving retroactive effect to provisions that worsen a person's legal position, as well as with the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

The Binding Force of Judicial Acts

The binding force of final judicial acts is another important consideration.

The judiciary can effectively perform its constitutional function only where judicial decisions are binding on state bodies, local self-government bodies, public officials and other participants in legal relations.

Where a subsequent legislative amendment automatically removes the effects of a judicial act adopted in a specific case, there is a risk of undermining the very principle of the binding force of judicial decisions.

The issue becomes particularly sensitive where one of the parties to an administrative dispute is a state authority or a local self-government body.

A legislative amendment may, in practice, improve the procedural position of a public authority during ongoing judicial proceedings while simultaneously depriving the opposing party of interim protection previously granted by the court.

This raises a further question as to whether a fair balance between the parties to the judicial proceedings is being maintained.

LSA Has Filed a Motion with the Court

The issue has already developed into a practical procedural matter.

An administrative case is currently pending before the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia in which the Court previously granted an application submitted on behalf of the party represented by LSA Law Firm and ordered an interim measure requiring the Yerevan Municipality to refrain from taking any action to demolish or dismantle the disputed property until the final decision concerning its legalisation enters into force.

Following the adoption of Law No. HO-398-N, LSA's lawyers filed a motion requesting the Court to consider referring the matter to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia.

The motion raises the question of whether the new legislative regulation complies with Articles 4, 61, 73, 75 and 162 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia.

LSA's position is that there are substantiated doubts as to the constitutionality of a provision which, by operation of law, terminates an interim measure previously ordered by a court.

Why Does This Issue Have Wider Significance?

The constitutional issue extends far beyond a single administrative case.

It concerns the fundamental relationship between the powers of the legislature and the judiciary, as well as the limits within which the legislature may amend procedural rules in relation to judicial proceedings that are already pending.

Ultimately, several fundamental questions require clarification:

whether the legislature may automatically terminate an interim measure previously ordered by a court in a specific case;

whether such interference is compatible with the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary;

whether effective judicial protection remains available where the disputed property may be destroyed before a final judicial decision is rendered;

whether it is permissible to apply new legislation to interim measures ordered before that legislation enters into force; and

whether such regulation infringes the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and the binding force of judicial acts.

LSA Law Firm will continue to advocate for constitutional review of the new regulation and to closely follow the development of judicial practice in this area.

If the Court concludes that the statutory grounds for referral to the Constitutional Court are satisfied, the compatibility of the disputed regulation with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia may ultimately be assessed through constitutional adjudication.

This publication constitutes a legal analysis of the legislative amendments and reflects the position of LSA Law Firm on the relevant issue. The final determination as to the constitutionality of the Law falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia.

Co-authors: Arsen Sardaryan and Edgar Ayvazyan