“Historic Disgrace”: Armenia Court Strips Artsakh Government of Its Last Official Presence in Yerevan

Armenia’s Administrative Court has ruled that the government authorities of the Republic of Artsakh no longer legally own their longtime representation building in Yerevan, siding with Armenia’s Prosecutor General’s Office in a decision that effectively transfers control of the property back under Armenian state authority.

The ruling means that the Republic of Artsakh has effectively lost ownership of the building that for years served as its official representation in Armenia’s capital. Lawyer Roman Yeritsyan, who has been involved in the case, described the decision as a “historic disgrace.”

The Armenian Report first wrote about the growing legal dispute in February, when the case was already being viewed as a battle over what many considered the final official presence of the Republic of Artsakh on Armenian soil.

At the center of the dispute is a 1,222-square-meter government compound in Yerevan. The property had long been registered under the authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh, the indigenous Armenian-populated region that remained under Armenian control for decades before Azerbaijan occupied it during a military operation in 2023.

The case has attracted significant attention not only because of the property itself, but because of what it symbolizes. Since the collapse of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian institutions following the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive and the forced displacement of the region’s Armenian population, Armenian authorities have increasingly signaled that no separate Karabakh governmental structures should continue functioning inside Armenia.

The legal challenge began in June 2025 after Armenia’s National Security Service reviewed the legality of the property registration. Based on a letter from the former director of the National Security Service, the Prosecutor General’s Office launched a review and later filed a lawsuit against Armenia’s Cadastre Committee seeking to revoke the ownership registration.

The land plot and the buildings constructed on it had officially been registered under the Government of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic since 2007.

Although the dispute formally centered on a property registration process completed nearly two decades ago, the case quickly developed into a broader debate over legality, state continuity, and the future of the Artsakh's political structures.

According to prosecutors, the original transfer of ownership was legally flawed because a formal donation agreement was never signed. Prosecutors argued that without such a contract, ownership rights could not have been properly transferred from the Armenian state to the Karabakh authorities.

Lawyers representing the Artsakh office rejected that interpretation.

Yeritsyan argued that under the Soviet-era civil legal framework that remained in force during the late 1990s, the Armenian government’s decision itself was enough to establish ownership rights. He also noted that some of the laws prosecutors relied upon only entered into force after the original transfer decision had already been made.

“The Armenian government voluntarily gave up ownership in 1997,” Yeritsyan said. “From that moment, it no longer had a legal claim to the property.”

The origins of the dispute go back nearly three decades.

In 1997, Armenia’s government decided to transfer the Yerevan property to the authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh, which at the time operated as a self-declared republic closely tied to Armenia but lacking international recognition. In 2006, Yerevan’s mayor granted permanent land-use rights, and one year later the property was officially registered under the Karabakh administration.

One of the most controversial aspects of the case involved the courts’ refusal to formally recognize or identify the “Government of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” as a legal party to the proceedings.

Both Armenia’s Administrative Court and Appellate Court ruled that the entity commonly referred to as the Republic of Artsakh was not sufficiently identifiable as a legal body under current circumstances. The courts also stated that submitted documents did not prove that anyone possessed the authority to legally represent it.

Yeritsyan strongly criticized that position, calling it a serious violation of due process.

“The court is considering taking property from an entity without allowing it to defend itself,” he said.

Following the latest ruling, Yeritsyan stated that the decision would be appealed. He also described the judgment as the most baseless and “absurd” judicial act he has encountered during his legal career.

The timing of the case has also drawn political attention. In the months leading up to the lawsuit, Armenian authorities carried out searches and investigations involving individuals connected to the former Artsakh leadership, including at the disputed compound itself.

Prosecutors have additionally suggested that separate criminal proceedings could eventually examine whether officials abused their authority during the original registration process in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

If upheld after appeals, the decision would effectively reverse a transfer made nearly thirty years ago and erase what many viewed as the final formal institutional footprint of the Republic of Artsakh authorities within Armenia.

For many observers, the outcome goes far beyond a dispute over real estate. The case has become a symbolic marker of Armenia’s evolving approach to the legacy and remaining structures of the Republic of Artsakh following the 2023 Azerbaijani occupation.

—

Support independent reporting from the region by subscribing to The Armenian Report. Our team is funded solely by readers like you.