Justice Minister Srbuhi Galyan emphasized the importance of international arbitrations as alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and noted that they play a vital role in Armenia’s legal system. She underlined that Armenia is obligated to comply with rulings by international arbitration tribunals.
Addressing the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Institute’s ruling related to the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA), Galyan said Armenia may choose not to enforce the arbitration decision if it contradicts public order, according to Aysor.am.
She explained that international treaties can be bilateral or multilateral. Regarding the ENA dispute, a bilateral investment treaty is in effect, and there is a specific recognition process for such arbitration decisions.
Galyan said that any party may apply to an Armenian court to have an arbitration ruling recognized before it becomes enforceable.
Under Armenian law and international conventions, there is a provision allowing non-enforcement of an arbitration award if it contradicts public order.
“I cannot say whether it will be deemed contrary to public order. The interim administrator’s entry into ENA pursued a different goal than what the opposing party claims. It aimed to prevent a looming crisis,” said Galyan.
She added that the Stockholm arbitration cannot establish intent. “At this stage, we are only dealing with the application of an interim measure, not the resolution of the dispute itself.”
Legal expert Davit Tumasyan pointed out that criminal liability is prescribed for failing to comply with international arbitration rulings.
According to him, Article 507 of Armenia’s Criminal Code provides for liability when someone fails to comply with a court ruling or obstructs its execution. Tumasyan explained that such acts violate public relations meant to ensure lawful enforcement of judicial acts.
He emphasized that the offense involves valid legal rulings and may include either direct obstruction or failure to comply within the set timeframe, particularly if enforcement is not otherwise possible.
If someone abuses their official position or influence to block execution, it constitutes an aggravating factor.
Tumasyan noted that, under the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, international arbitration rulings are enforced in the same manner as domestic judgments. Courts must accept and execute applications for enforcement within two weeks unless the claimant waives enforcement.
He clarified that these awards are integral to Armenia’s legal framework and that failure to comply carries consequences equivalent to ignoring domestic judgments.
He noted that this provision does not apply to criminal sentencing or detention measures, which are regulated separately under the Criminal and Penal Codes.
Regarding the mental element of the offense, Tumasyan said intent can be either direct or indirect. That is, if a person is aware of the consequences but proceeds anyway, intent is established.
Determining who is responsible for executing a judgment addressed to an organization depends on internal regulations and legal documents of that entity.
“These provisions apply only if, according to Articles 23 and 25 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration, a claim is filed with the court and the court approves it. Moreover, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, if without valid reason the claimant fails to file the claim under Article 23(1), the arbitration is terminated. If the respondent fails to present objections under the same article, the arbitration proceeds. If a party misses a hearing or fails to submit evidence on time, the tribunal may continue proceedings and rule based on available evidence,” Tumasyan said.
Businessman and philanthropist Samvel Karapetyan and his family, currently under two-month detention, won the emergency arbitration case against the Armenian government over the nationalization of ENA. On July 22, 2025, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce’s emergency arbitration tribunal ordered Armenia to refrain from applying certain recent legislative provisions on energy and regulatory bodies to ENA and to halt any further expropriation efforts.
The Armenian government responded to the July 22 ruling, stating that the scope of the dispute differs from the objectives behind appointing an interim administrator. While respecting the decision, it emphasized that all actions must also align with Armenia’s legislation.
