11 years ago, in 2007, Elvira Arzakanyan\u2019s family, including her mother, husband and two sons resettled from Yerevan to Karabakh\u2019s Vardut village of Kashatagh region through the resettlement program.<\/p>\n
According to this program, the family was entitled to a 3-room newly built house on the condition that any of the family members need to live in the house for 10 years without interruption after which they can privatize the house. The conditions also included a prohibition of absence longer than 3 months.<\/p>\n
The family lived in the house from 2007 until 2012. Three of the family members worked in the village school as teachers. Elvira\u2019s husband also worked as a veterinary.<\/p>\n
In 2012, new teachers are resettled to Vardut.<\/p>\n
\u201cOur class hours were reduced and therefore the salary was not sufficient for our living, so my husband, children and I came back to Yerevan. My mother, however, who is a teacher for 50 years, has a disability of category 2, continued to live in the village and work in the school,\u201d tells us Elvira.<\/p>\n
In April 2017, when Elvira\u2019s mother Karine Pirumyan\u2019s 10-year term of living in the house was reached, she left for Yerevan for medical treatment, as there was no due health service in Karabakh.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen my mom came to Yerevan in April, she had in her mind the condition of the contract that she shouldn\u2019t be absent for more than 3 months, and on June 30, 2017 she returns home and receives her pension. I have a document that confirms this. Then she goes back to Yerevan to continue her treatment. On September 26, when the three months of absence was not yet reached, she went back to Vardut to receive her pension in order to have money for treatment.\u201d<\/p>\n
In September 2017, Karine Pirumyan had the right to privatize the house, however Kashatagh region\u2019s administration decides to take the house back and resettle another family there.<\/p>\n
Karine Pirumyan turned to Karabakh courts, however the courts of both first instance and appeals rejected her claims. They stated that the woman had not used electricity in the house and that provided evidence that she had been absent for more than 3 months and therefore had violated the terms of the contract.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe court does mention that my mother went to receive a pension every other month, however does not mention that this was before the contractual 3-month term was reached. In other words, the terms of the contract were not breached.\u201d<\/p>\n
Karine Pirumyan has appealed the decisions of the courts to the Court of Cassation with the hope that it will pay attention to the fact that the 3-month absentee prohibition was not breached.<\/p>\n