In one of the cases conducted by the company, the issues of charging a commission from trust organizations based on a contract and obliging the fulfillment of these contractual obligations were discussed. By the decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, the monopoly on the implementation of service activities in a specific area was granted to a state non-profit organization, which carried out this activity through private organizations and, under the contract, established for them the obligation to pay commissions. At the same time, the size of the commission was determined by the council of the state non-profit organization.

When protecting the rights and legitimate interests of 5 organizations during the consideration of court cases, our company justified that

1. The Government of the Republic of Armenia, by its relevant decision, established the regulation of several legal relations for which it was not authorized by law. Moreover, the relevant economic sphere was granted to the non-profit organization in a monopolistic manner, and several restrictions were imposed.

2. Such restrictions generally contradict the fundamental rights and freedoms provided by the Constitution, including the right to freedom of economic activity. 

3. The commission foreseen by the contract actually corresponds to the characteristics of mandatory payment provided by the Constitution, therefore, it should have been established by law in accordance with the requirements provided by the Constitution.  

4. The constraints do not correspond to the principle of proportionality, and the principle of reasonable balance between private and public interests. 
Our company also argued that in case of doubts about the constitutionality of legal acts to be applied at any stage of the case, the courts should apply to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia, contributing to the direct application of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. The Court of General Jurisdiction of the first instance of Yerevan applied the claim to the RA Constitutional Court, and the latter accepted the case for consideration.

As a result, the claims of our clients were satisfied on the basis of the defendant's forgiveness of all obligations.

In the framework of the cooperation with UNDP, the feasibility study has been carried out to review the ICT environment of the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) of Armenia including current information systems, infrastructure, resources, and capacity. The FS team was composed of Ardita Driza Maurer, Justin Nettman, and Shalva Kipshidze, Rafik Grigoryan, as well as UNDP staff Davit Khachatryan and Araks Babayan under the overall supervision of the UNDP DG/IBM Portfolio Analyst Alla Bakunts. The team discussed the possible development of ICT solutions and took stock of previous studies, ongoing work, and upcoming possible electoral reform. 

The feasibility study (FS) provides a view of the current state of election technology systems used in Armenia today and explores possible technology solutions and systems which could be introduced in a structured manner in the future, based on international standards and good practice. The assessment provides recommendations for the improvement and harmonization of ICT systems in-line with the international best standards, including a five-year roadmap with activities and priorities for implementing the strategy. 

Moreover, Rafik Grigoryan with Ardita Driza Maurer and Justin Nettman wrote a research paper that received EVoteID2021 Best Paper Award at the International Conference on Electronic Voting 2021.

The paper written by them has been recognized as the best contribution to the Track on Elections and Practical Experiences. The paper is available on the link: https://www.facebook.com/230577184077670/posts/1219636565171722/?d=n

Another Assessment on issues of cybersecurity in elections has been carried out by an international ICT and Cybersecurity Assessment Team.

The UNDP has developed the "Electoral Support Project in Armenia – 3" (ESPA-3) to assist the Armenian stakeholders in holding parliamentary elections on 20 June 2021, as well as in the long-term transformation and capacity building of electoral management bodies. 

The ICT and Cybersecurity Assessment of the Electoral Process of Armenia has been conducted by the Assessment Team led by the Chief Technical Advisor on the Electoral Support Yuliya Shypilova (UNDP in-house expert) and consisting of the International ICT and Cybersecurity Expert Michael Yard, International Cybersecurity Expert Merle Maigre, National Legal Expert Rafik Grigoryan and National ICT and Cybersecurity Expert Samvel Gevorgyan (UNDP in-house expert). ICT and Cybersecurity assessment of the electoral process in Armenia intended to evaluate [RG1] the status of hardware, software, network, and the knowledge of personnel working with CEC information systems and infrastructure, to identify its risks, vulnerabilities, and potential for further enhancement of the use of ICT and Cybersecurity in Armenia.     

As the result of the work of the assessment team, which has studied all the important issues on cybersecurity including the recent cyberattack on the Armenian CEC website and overall significant cybersecurity incidents in Armenia and electoral-related cybersecurity breaches in the region and globally defined the tendencies, risks, and vulnerabilities of the electoral process in principle and specifically for Armenia, the assessment report has been written which can serve as a basis for mapping the current cybersecurity infrastructure in Armenia with a focus on the electoral process. 

In another case, a consolidation of shares was carried out in one of the large companies in Armenia, as a result of which the shares belonging to our client were repurchased by the company. At the same time, the company registered its rights to shares without paying the price determined by the company to the former shareholder. Referring to a number of circumstances and facts, we have substantiated that:

1. without receiving fair compensation for the shares, a share repurchase cannot be carried out, otherwise, it is the illegal deprivation of property of a person,
2. the defendant /company/ is also obliged to pay interest for the illegal storage of another person's funds, as a result of overdue payment to the former shareholder,
3. the market value of the company's shares was determined in violation of the requirements of the RA Law "On Joint Stock Companies", and a number of circumstances were not taken into account, including the value of the shares was estimated below the net assets of the company. 

In another case, the situation is as follows: a shareholder of one of the closed joint-stock companies in Armenia decided to sell his shares, about which the shareholder did properly notify the company and other shareholders. The latter did not declare their intention to exercise their preferred right to purchase shares within the prescribed period. As a result, the company repurchased the shares sold by its shareholders. The company then alienated the acquired shares by selling them to a third party. Then the new owner of these shares donated them to another person. Currently, a judicial case is being considered on the basis of a lawsuit filed by one of the company's shareholders, the latter asks to invalidate the transactions made in respect of these shares.
In the framework of this case, we have substantiated the following:
1. the shareholders of the closed joint-stock companies, when selling the company's own shares acquired in the cases established by the law, do not have a preemptive right to purchase,
2. In the case of an alleged violation by the plaintiff of his preemptive right, the way to protect the rights cannot be the presentation of a claim for the invalidity of a transaction concluded between other persons. The chosen method of protecting the right is not aimed directly at restoring the alleged violated rights of the plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff is not an interested person in this case,
3. The sale of shares by a company to a third party is not a major transaction. The concept of a share placement means only the first sale of shares (primary offering) or, in other words, a paid alienation to an investor. 
4. A donation of shares made by a third party cannot be invalidated and shares cannot be withdrawn from the donor, since the law does not provide such a possibility of limiting ownership rights.

On the part of the employer, a strict reprimand and disciplinary punishment were applied to two employees with the justification that the latter did not fulfill their labor duties properly, in particular, the head of the department did not exercise control powers, including duties to organize the case in a reasonable time and properly, and the disciplinary rules of labor were violated by the employee.

During the investigation of two court cases on our part, it was proved by our law office that:

•  if the head of the department gave oral instructions to the employee, then, in this case, the head of the department has to prove this fact, and the fact of the proper performance of labor duties should be considered in combination with other circumstances of the case,
• the employee is obliged to take all measures depending on him in order not to violate the reasonable deadline for the performance of work, including timely notifying the employer of any problems or circumstances that hinder the performance of work, or suspending the deadline for the performance of work,
• when considering the issue of disciplinary liability against an employee, the damage or the possibility of harm to a third party caused by this violation should also be taken into account. 

As a result of the consideration of these two judicial cases, the individual legal act establishing disciplinary liability was upheld, that is, the claim was rejected, and in another case, the plaintiff refused his claims.