ENA dismissal cases falling apart in courts - Hetq

ArmInfo. Dismissal cases following the appointment of an interim manager of Electric Networks of Armenia CJSC are falling apart in the courts due to a lack of concrete factual grounds. This is reported by Hetq.

"Courts are one after another invalidating acts drawn up according to  the same template, obliging the company to pay for forced downtime  and compensation for failure to reinstate. From the appointment of  Romanos Petrosyan as interim manager of ENA until January 14, 2026,  47 lawsuits have been filed against the company. Decisions have  already been made in six cases, and the company is obligated to pay  tens of millions of drams in compensation," the publication reports.  Hetq recalls that, based on a decision by the Chairman of the Public  Services Regulatory Commission (PSRC), and a notice submitted by the  authorized government body on July 15, 2025, administrative  proceedings were initiated against Electric Networks of Armenia CJSC,  and an investigation was launched into possible violations of the  requirements established by the Law on Energy and legal acts adopted  by the Commission in the energy sector. On July 18, 2025, by decision  of the PSRC Chairman, Romanos Petrosyan was appointed interim manager  of ENA.

As Romanos Petrosyan stated in response to a written inquiry from  Hetq, from July 18, 2025, to January 14, 2026, 47 lawsuits related to  labor disputes were filed against ENA CJSC. Of these 47, the court  has ruled on only eight cases, with the remainder pending. In  particular, one lawsuit was dismissed (it is unknown whether it will  be appealed to a higher court). Two cases were dismissed due to the  plaintiffs' withdrawal of their claims, and five civil cases were  partially satisfied.

According to Petrosyan, a review of five partially successful cases  revealed that the courts only rejected the employees' demands for  reinstatement to their previous positions. The reason is that the  tense atmosphere prevented the continuation of the employment  relationship. Nevertheless, the ESA was ordered to compensate for the  forced downtime and the failure to reinstate the employees to their  previous positions.  In the cases that were lost, the ESA will also  have to pay significant sums in state fees. Specifically, the courts  ordered a state fee of 2-3 percent of the satisfied amounts (e.g., 2%  of 15 million drams is 300,000 drams), as well as a state fee of  20,000 drams in each case for invalidating R. Petrosyan's decisions.  On January 14, 2026, the day Hetq's response to the inquiry was  received, the court also partially upheld the claim of David  Kazinyan, Deputy General Director of ESA CJSC and Director of the  Kentron Territorial Coordination Department. This case is not  mentioned in Petrosyan's response (likely because the court's  decision had not yet been received). The court invalidated the order  terminating Petrosyan's employment contract. Furthermore, it was  decided to collect compensation from ESA for the period of forced  downtime, namely, an amount equal to the salary for the last nine  months of his previous employment, as well as compensation for  failure to resume work equal to six times his average salary. The  decision does not specify the exact salary David Kazinyan received at  ESA. However, given his many years of experience and high position,  it can be assumed that it was quite high.

The basis for David Gazinyan's dismissal was a media interview given  on July 21, 2025, in front of the ESA headquarters during business  hours. In it, Gazinyan stated that he did not trust the company's  interim manager, Romanos Petrosyan, and that abuses were constantly  occurring within the company, which he and his employees had  uncovered.

His employment contract was terminated that same day. David Gazinyan  had worked at ESA for approximately 18 years. The basis for his  dismissal was the "loss of trust" demonstrated during this interview.  The court concluded that ESA had failed to prove a causal link  between the statements made in the interview and the actual risk of  confidential information being disclosed in violation of the contract  and causing material damage to the company. Consequently, his  employment contract was terminated without legal grounds.