Armenia has launched a new simplified instrument for foreign employees

Armenia passed a bill amending the Law “On Foreigners”, establishing a new system for giving work permits to foreigners in Armenia starting from January 1, 2022. The main changes are as follows:

  • A unified digital platform is being introduced through which information about foreign employees and employers is entered or uploaded;
  • Employers can submit the work permit applications through a single digital platform;
  • If a work permit is currently issued in a documented form, the work permit from now will be a digital form, allowing foreign employees to obtain a temporary residence and work permit in Armenia;
  • The law says that during the term of the validity of the work contract (service agreement), the employer undertakes to cover the costs of transporting a foreigner’s corpse to his home country owing to the fulfillment of labor responsibilities;
  • To protect personal data, the authorized state entity in charge of migration must limit the state bodies’ access to information about the foreigner or his employer after fulfilling its direct tasks in the process of resolving the employment of a foreign person;

The opportunity to work in Armenia without obtaining a work permit was also given to those, who received a temporary residence permit in Armenia:

  • Based on the person’s nationality;
  • Foreign students enrolled in the Armenia educational institutions for a period of one year after graduation, as well as students participating in an employment exchange program during the vacations on the basis of appropriate international agreements,
  • If there are some other conditions stipulated by law.

The Government of Armenia must establish the technical description of the unified digital platform, the procedure for conducting, minimum requirements for applications, the procedure for filling out and submitting applications on the digital platform, and the procedure for attracting foreign employees to the digital platform. The decision outlining some defined method has now reached the end of public debate, and it is likely to take effect alongside the adjustments.

Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Armenia

Generally, judgments made by foreign courts in civil cases can be recognized and enforced either if there are provisions in international treaties or based on the principle of reciprocity.

Reciprocity should be understood in the context of international civil procedure as a method of regulating interactions with foreign states in which foreign court decisions can only be recognized and enforced if the first state’s court decisions can be recognized and enforced in the state where they were issued. In this scenario, the primary goal of reciprocity is to influence a foreign state’s legal policy by imposing equivalent restrictions on its citizens’ rights. Reciprocity is founded on the concept of equal exchange (equal concessions) between equal entities.

The primary goal of guaranteeing reciprocity in international civil procedure is to influence a foreign state’s legal policy. As a result of the principle of sovereignty, the state determines the conditions for the recognition of rights obtained in another country at its own discretion.

A considerable number of nineteenth-century governments took a similar approach to the content of the idea of “reciprocity.”

In this regard, the Belgian Court of Cassation’s decision in the Beaufremont case, dated January 19, 1882, states that when deciding on the issue of recognition and execution (exequatur), Belgian courts must first establish the existence of an international treaty concluded on the basis of reciprocity. The doctrine describes a comparable method to regulating the acceptance and enforcement of foreign decisions as “conventional” or “diplomatic” reciprocity.

The main purpose of conventional reciprocity was to ensure the reciprocal nature of the concessions of the contracting States. Unilateral concessions were considered a sign of the weakness of the state in the international arena.

At the same time, the first works in the field of comparative civil procedure demonstrated that recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial decisions are permitted in some countries (mainly the Anglo-American legal family) based on the idea of duty (i.e. in the absence of an international treaty). In this instance, the rule of reciprocity was interpreted in such a way that foreign judgments might be recognized and enforced in cases where the statute or judicial practice of the state of issuance permitted so.

This is how the concepts of “lawful reciprocity” and “real reciprocity”, which are antithetical to the concept of “conventional reciprocity”, developed (in respect to circumstances where recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments were permitted by the relevant State’s judicial practice).

The rule of ensuring reciprocity is understood variously in modern foreign legislation.

The idea of “reciprocity” in the realm of recognition and execution of foreign judgments is linked to “legitimate reciprocity” by current Russian legislator. In addition, a number of post-Soviet governments, including Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan, have abandoned the international treaty as a criterion for the recognition of foreign judicial acts in favor of the reciprocity principle.

On the contrary, there is a consistent approach in Anglo-American doctrine and law enforcement practice, according to which a friendly attitude toward foreign judicial judgments is an inherent aspect of the state’s legal policy.

Some experts even suggest that “reciprocity” is one of the “universal principles of law” and / or “international customs” acknowledged by all civilized nations. It is argued in support of this thesis that reciprocity as an international law principle is established in the UN Charter’s preamble as well as the Declaration on “General Principles of International Law.” However, the allusion to these papers suggests that they are discussing “mutual collaboration” among states rather than a state’s right. Allowing the recognition of rights gained in another country, as long as the second country guarantees the recognition of rights acquired in the first (“reciprocity”).

If the many manifestations of the reciprocity principle may be conditionally categorized, the following can be stated:

  • Reciprocity is regarded as possible in a number of states that have established the idea of reciprocity if there are cases of recognition and execution of judgments of the requesting state’s courts in the judicial practice of a foreign state (the example of China). That is, in each case of recognition and execution of foreign judicial acts, the courts of these states must determine whether there are cases of recognition and execution of their own judicial acts in the foreign state in question.
  • Another group of states that have made the presence of a precedent for the recognition or execution of judicial acts of their own courts in a foreign state a legal requirement do not consider the absence of a precedent for the recognition or execution of judicial acts of their own courts in a foreign state sufficient reason to refuse recognition and execution of judicial acts of that state. The potential of reciprocity is determined by researching a foreign country’s legislation. To determine if there is no such reason for refusal, the courts examine the judicial practice of the state that issued the judicial act in each instance to see if cases of recognition and execution of judicial acts are documented in the state. Germany, for example, is one of these countries. The requirement to ensure reciprocity is considered met in German doctrine and in the countries that have adopted the German model of procedural law (Turkey, Japan), provided that the requirements for foreign judicial decisions in the issuing state generally coincide with similar requirements in force in the state of recognition. Foreign law shall not impose more stringent restrictions on German court decisions than those imposed by Article 328 of the Civil Process Code of 1878, according to the German doctrine.
  • When determining the presence of reciprocity, the third group of States, which believes it is conceivable to recognize and execute judicial acts based on the principle of reciprocity, is led by the presumption of its existence, which presupposes reciprocity unless the reverse is shown.

The new Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia establishes two independent grounds for the recognition of foreign judicial acts. In particular, according to Article 346 of the RA Code of Civil Procedure, judicial acts of courts of foreign states rendered in civil cases are recognized, and judicial acts requiring execution are also executed in the Republic of Armenia, if such recognition and execution are provided for by an international treaty of the Republic of Armenia or on the basis of reciprocity․

If recognition and execution of a foreign judicial act depends on reciprocity, then reciprocity is considered to exist until proven otherwise. This means that in the absence of an international treaty, the principle of reciprocity applies, the existence of which, however, can be refuted. In other words, the presumption of the principle of reciprocity is valid until it is refuted. As a rule, the burden of proving the absence of repatriation is borne by the procedural opponent of the claiming party․

It should also be noted that the Armenia’s legislation provides for the recognition of foreign judicial acts in specific situations even in the absence of international treaties and reciprocity. That is, showing the lack of reciprocity during the trial does not rule out the recognition of a foreign judicial act. In particular, Armenia recognizes the following, notwithstanding the lack of an international convention or reciprocity:

  • judicial acts on the legal status of persons;
  • foreign judicial acts on the dissolution of marriage or the annulment of marriage between foreign citizens; 
  • foreign judicial acts on the dissolution of marriage or annulment of marriage between citizens of the Republic of Armenia or between citizens of the Republic of Armenia and foreign citizens or stateless persons;
  • if stipulated by law – other foreign judicial acts.

Based on the principle of reciprocity, the courts of Armenia have recognized the judgments issued by the courts of France and the United States of America (state of California), as well as the Lebanese Republic, and thus the first step in recognizing the judicial acts issued by the courts of Armenia in these countries has been completed.

FIDIC contracts with an Armenian accent

Since their publication in 1999 the three FIDIC contract forms, or, as also named, Books, have become not just well known and respected in international infrastructure contracting in all its many guises, but a major force for international cooperation and understanding.

The second editions of the three main FIDIC construction contracts were formally introduced at the London users’ conference in December 2017. The new Red, Yellow and Silver Books had long been anticipated and represented the first update to the three main forms since 1999.

FIDIC forms have U.K. origins and important features of the forms reflect English or common law concepts. FIDIC contracts have, however, been used successfully whatever the governing law and a feature of the contracts historically, as well as the 2017 editions, has been to ensure as far as possible that the general conditions are neutral with respect to the particular governing law chosen by the parties.

Clause 1.4 of the Yellow Book, as well as the Red Book, entitles that The Contract shall be governed by the law of the country (or other jurisdiction) stated in the Contract Data (if not stated, the law of the Country), excluding any conflict of law rules.

Under Armenian regulations, construction and design works, as a rule, are carried out on the basis of a construction contractor agreement, the regulation of which is mainly provided for by Chapter 37 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, and in many cases, regulations are flexible at the discretion of the parties.

For example, a feature of the Yellow Book in both editions is that, like the Red Book forms, it seeks to strike a fair balance of risk between Contractor and Employer. The Contract allocates risk by striking a balance between the need to protect the Employer from the time and cost consequences of physical conditions which an experienced Contractor ought to have foreseen, and the need to protect responsible contractors from the time and cost consequences of conditions which they cannot reasonably have been expected to foresee at tender stage.

Under Article 739 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, the distribution of risk between the parties is carried out as follows:

The risk of accidental loss of or accidental damage to the construction facility that is the subject matter of the construction contractor agreement shall be borne by the contractor before acceptance thereof by the customer.

However, risk allocation regulations are mainly dispositive, which entitles parties to choose the relevant scenario, in this case, using both of Contract forms as needed.

It is also worth noting that, despite traditional dispute resolution methods (national courts), the Armenian legislation recognizes the ability of alternative dispute resolution methods.

Իրավունքի չարաշահում․ ընդհանուր դիտարկում

Օրենսդիրն իրավունքի սուբյեկտներին սուբյեկտիվ իրավունքներ վերապահելուց զատ, կանխորոշում է նաև այդ իրավունքների իրականացման սահմանները։ Եթե իրավունքի սուբյեկտը խախտում է օրենքով նախատեսված սահմանափակումները, ապա թույլ է տալիս իրավունքի չարաշահում։

Իրավունքի տեսությունը իրավունքի չարաշահումը բնորոշում է որպես թույլատրելի ընդհանուր վարքագծի շրջանակներում իրավունքներն իրականացնելիս իրավազոր անձի կողմից անթույլատրելի ձևերի օգտագործմամբ կատարվող իրավախախտման առանձնահատուկ տեսակ և այն պայմանականորեն դասակարգում է երկու հիմնական խմբի․

  • Իրավունքի չարաշահում, որը կատարվում է այլ անձանց վնաս պատճառելու ուղղակի մտադրությամբ (շիկանա)․
  • Իրավունքի չարաշահում, առանց այլ անձանց վնաս պատճառելու մտադրության, բայց օբյեկտիվորեն նրանց վնաս պատճառող․

Իրավունքի չարաշահումն արձանագրվում է, երբ առկա է, որպես կանոն, հետևյալ պայմանների համակցությունը.

  • Անձը պետք է ունենա համապատասխան սուբյեկտիվ իրավունքը,
  • Իրավունքի չարաշահումը տեղի է ունենում սուբյեկտիվ իրավունքի իրացման ընթացքում. անձն առերևույթ գործում է իրավական կարգադրագրերին համապատասխան,
  • Անձի առերևույթ իրավաչափ գործողությունները հանգեցնում են պետության, հանրության կամ այլ անձանց օրինական շահերի խախտմանը, իսկ անձը ձգտում է հասնել իր համար ցանկալի արդյունքին կամ նպատակին,
  • Իրավունքի չարաշահումը կամային գործընթաց է, այսինքն, անձը գիտակցում է, որ ինքն իր սուբյեկտիվ իրավունքը չարաշահում է, հետևաբար՝ պետք է կանխատեսի, որ կարող է վնաս պատճառել պետության, հանրության կամ այլ անձանց օրինական շահերին:

ՀՀ իրավական համակարգում իրավունքի չարաշահման արգելքը ամրագրվել է, ի թիվս այլնի, նաև ՀՀ քաղաքացիական օրենսգրքում (այսուհետ նաև՝ Օրենսգիրք)։


Օրենսգրքի 12-րդ հոդվածը սահմանում է

  • Քաղաքացիների և իրավաբանական անձանց այն գործողությունները, որոնք իրականացվում են բացառապես այլ անձի վնաս պատճառելու մտադրությամբ, ինչպես նաև իրավունքն այլ ձևով չարաշահելը չի թույլատրվում:
  • Մրցակցության սահմանափակման նպատակներով քաղաքացիական իրավունքներն օգտագործել, ինչպես նաև շուկայում գերիշխող դրությունը չարաշահել չի թույլատրվում:
  • Նույն հոդվածի 1-ին կետով նախատեսված պահանջները չպահպանելու դեպքում դատարանը կամ արբիտրաժային տրիբունալը կարող է մերժել անձին նրան պատկանող իրավունքի պաշտպանության հարցում:

Վերոգրյալից հետևում է, որ արգելվում են ինչպես բացառապես այլ անձի վնաս պատճառելու մտադրությամբ իրականացված գործողությունները (շիկանա), այնպես էլ իրավունքն այլ ձևով չարաշահելը․

Ընդգծված ուշադրության է արժանացել մրցակցության սահմանափակման նպատակներով քաղաքացիական իրավունքների օգտագործման, ինչպես նաև շուկայում գերիշխող դիրքը չարաշահելու արգելքը․

Որպես իրավունքի չարաշահման իրավական հետևանք՝ սահմանվել է վեճը լուծող մարմնի կողմից սուբյեկտիվ իրավունքի պաշտպանության մերժման հնարավորությունը։ Իրավունքի չարաշահման դիտանկյունից օրենքի խախտմամբ ձեռք բերված կամ ձևականորեն օրենքի պահպանմամբ, սակայն իրավունքի նպատակային նշանակությանը հակառակ գործելու մտադրությամբ, այսինքն` իրավունքի չարաշահմամբ ձեռք բերված սուբյեկտիվ իրավունքը ենթակա չէ պաշտպանության։

Հարկ է նաև նշել, որ ՀՀ սահմանադրական դատարանը 2021թ․ հոկտեմբերի 12-ին թիվ ՍԴՈ-1613 որոշմամբ արձանագրել է, որ օրենքում «իրավունքի չարաշահում» հասկացության և հատկանիշների բացահայտված չլինելն ինքնին չի կարող գնահատվել իբրև խնդրահարույց իրավական որոշակիության տեսանկյունից (տե´ս ՀՀ սահմանադրական դատարանի 12 հոկտեմբերի 2021 թվականի թիվ  ՍԴՈ-1613)։