On December 2, 2024, the Administrative Court of Armenia, presided over by Judge
Karen Zarikyan, issued what may be an unprecedented ruling. After nine years of legal
proceedings, the court partially upheld the lawsuit filed by Armenian citizens against the
planned exploitation of the Amulsar gold mine. The ruling was reported by the Armenian
Environmental Front (AEF) civil initiative.
"As early as 2015, eleven residents of Gndevaz village and two non-governmental
organizations filed a lawsuit demanding that a series of legal acts granting approval to
the Amulsar project be declared unlawful. Without delving into the details of the lengthy
legal process, at this moment, we consider it important to highlight this potentially historic
ruling by the court, which establishes that the environmental impact assessment was
obtained in violation of the law and that the process itself was merely formalistic. This
issue has been repeatedly raised by the environmental community and communities
opposing mining projects—not only in the case of Amulsar but in numerous other
projects as well."
With this statement, we are presenting several excerpts from the court ruling and the
court’s analysis section. The full verdict can be found here.
The court ruled:
1) ...The lawsuit against the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure
was partially upheld.
2) Declared null and void:
● Ministerial Order No. 286-A (November 24, 2014), issued by the Minister of
Energy and Natural Resources, regarding the expansion of the subsoil site
and modification of the permit period.
● The November 25, 2014, amendment to Mining Allocation Act LV-245,
which was originally reformulated on September 26, 2012.
● The November 29, 2014, amendment to Mineral Extraction Permit
SHATV-29/245, which was originally reformulated on September 26,
2012...
The expert conclusion issued by the authorized body was primarily descriptive in nature.
It largely reproduced the results of the environmental impact assessment conducted by
the project applicant, referencing opinions provided by various organizations, but did not
contain any independent analysis of the key issues. This was not incidental, as two of
the three individuals who signed the expert conclusion (A. Minasyan, Z. Zurnachyan)
were questioned as witnesses during the court session on February 12, 2024, and stated
that they lacked sufficient professional expertise to assess the environmental impact of
the project. According to their testimonies, they had only compiled opinions from different
agencies and organized stakeholder discussions, but they did not have the necessary
qualifications to make independent professional judgments on the environmental risks
outlined in the conclusion. The third signatory, H. Grigoryan, was the Deputy Director of
the Environmental Expertise State Non-Commercial Organization. However, according to
witness Minasyan, Grigoryan did not substantively participate in the expert review
process.
The court determined that an environmental impact assessment is not limited to the
organizational tasks described by the witnesses. According to Article 16, Part 2, Clause
(g) of Law HO-21, the authorized body is responsible for appointing experts whose
professional qualifications enable them to conduct a thorough and legally sound
environmental impact assessment, ensuring the protection of the rights defined in Article
2 of Law HO-21, including the right to a healthy environment. Since the individuals
involved in the environmental impact assessment lacked the necessary expertise, the
legal standards required by the law were not met.
During the case, the court also examined an independent expert report prepared by
ELARD, which was part of a criminal investigation initiated by Armenia’s Special
Investigative Service (Case No. 69104218, dated July 22, 2019). The report identified
several environmental risks, including:
● Impact on underground water sources.
● Acidic drainage from rock deposits and its effect on water quality.
● Poor surface water quality.
● Inadequate hydrological flow modeling in project simulations.
● Potential groundwater contamination from open-pit mining.
● Deficiencies in the passive water treatment system for waste rock disposal.
● Issues related to heap leaching solution management.
● High seismic risk in the project area.
● Unjustified post-closure cost estimates.
● Deficiencies in the environmental monitoring program.
● Lack of geolocation data for biodiversity assessments.
● Air pollution concerns.
Under these conditions, where the environmental impact assessment was conducted in
violation of Article 11, Part 1 of Law HO-21 and failed to address key environmental
issues, the environmental risks arising from the expansion of the subsoil site for mineral
extraction could not be considered manageable. Furthermore, the court’s conclusion
applies solely to the expansion authorized by the contested administrative acts and does
not pertain to the legality of prior rights granted to a third party, as those administrative
acts were not disputed in this case.
The court also emphasized that under these legal considerations, Lydian Armenia’s
data-which allegedly refuted the environmental risks of the proposed project—was
irrelevant. These risks should have been properly assessed as part of a legally
mandated environmental impact assessment, which did not occur in this case. The court
ruled that the environmental risks associated with the expansion of the mining site could
not be deemed manageable until a proper assessment was conducted by the authorized
body in accordance with legal requirements.
The court further found that the authorized body (the Ministry of Environment, formerly
the Ministry of Environmental Protection), acting as a third party in the case, exhibited
procedural passivity. The ministry did not present any arguments to defend the expert
report it had issued, despite the plaintiffs primarily challenging the report’s compliance
with legal requirements. Moreover, the court had raised this issue in a letter to the
Minister of Environmental Protection on April 18, 2019, yet no response was received
from the ministry defending the expert opinion.
Based on all the above, the court concluded that the environmental impact assessment
for the expansion of the subsoil site granted for mineral extraction was conducted in
violation of the aforementioned provisions of Law HO-21. As a result, the plaintiffs' right
to a favorable environment for health, normal living, and creativity, as guaranteed by
Article 2 of Law HO-21, was not upheld. Since the environmental risks arising from the
subsoil expansion had not been properly evaluated under the legally required standards,
a positive environmental impact conclusion had been issued without determining
whether the project would create conditions incompatible with the plaintiffs' right to a
healthy and sustainable living environment.
The court also emphasized that all the plaintiffs are residents of the Gndevaz community,
which is considered an affected settlement under Article 4, Part 1, Clauses 16 and 17 of
Law HO-110-N, due to its proximity to the planned project. Given the short distance
between the plaintiffs’ residences and the mining site, their right to a healthy and
sustainable environment was even more at risk due to the expansion permitted by the
contested administrative acts. Since the project had not been properly evaluated in
accordance with legally mandated environmental impact assessment procedures and
standards, the real risk of creating conditions incompatible with the plaintiffs’ health and
well-being could not be excluded.
Under these circumstances, the administrative acts authorizing the expansion of the
subsoil site for mineral extraction were issued based on an environmental impact
assessment obtained in violation of the law, thereby violating the plaintiffs' right to a
healthy environment, as guaranteed in Article 2, Part 1 of Law HO-21. Therefore, these
administrative acts are invalid under Article 63, Part 1, Clause (a) of the law.
Thus, the lawsuit regarding the expansion of the subsoil site and the modification of the
permit period, as defined by Ministerial Order No. 286-A (November 24, 2014), issued by
the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, is well-founded and subject to
acceptance.
However, the request to annul Ministerial Order No. 188-A (November 11, 2014), as well
as amendments to SHATV-29/245 and LV-245 (November 12, 2014), is rejected and
deemed irrelevant and subject to dismissal, as noted in the statement.
Main photo courtesy: Armenian Environmental Front (AEF) civil initiative.
Photo: Tehmine Yenokyan
December 04, 2024 at 11:38