Requested by: Armenia, Constitutional Court, President

Recommended Measures:
While a civil forfeiture action may be an effective tool to fight public corruption and prevent illicit acquisition of assets, this tool should be applied within reasonable limits and be accompanied by effective procedural guarantees. As long as the owner of the property has a real chance to refute the presumption, and may forward the “inaccessible evidence” or bona fide ownership defence, the solution appears proportionate. In the context of the Law, it could be useful to explain better the standard of proof applied in such cases. As regards the retroactive effect of the Law, it is generally accepted that the fight against corruption makes it necessary to act not only pro futuro, but also with a view to illicit acquisition of property in the past. Retroactive application of the Law can generally be considered proportionate and compatible with the Armenian Constitution which affords protection of property only when it has been acquired lawfully. That being said, the duty to give explanations about the origins of the property should remain reasonable. Furthermore, the timeframe for the forfeiture of property should be reasonable and it should be applied equally to all cases, and not left to the discretion of the authorities.