Armenia Country Profile

General Information

The Political Climate


Armenia is a transitional economy, with construction and services as the two main engines of its economic growth. Armenia's annual GDP has grown by an average of 12% for the past several years, providing an attractive market for foreign investors despite a 10% inflation rate and a growing trade deficit. According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010, Armenia has completed its transition from an economy described as 'factor-driven' to one driven by efficiency. Current President, Serzh Sargsian, took over from his predecessor, Robert Kocharian, in 2008. The government of Armenia consists of three branches, however, the institutional setup provides for an authoritarian President and a strong executive. As a consequence, the Parliament (Azgayin Zhoghov) can be described as generally ineffective and the judiciary as overly compliant to the demands of the executive. The lack of judicial impartiality and independence has been criticised by international experts as fostering a culture of impunity and for institutionalising corruption. In the February 2008 presidential elections, President Sargsian was elected with nearly 53% of the votes. While initially seen as 'mostly in line' with OSCE standards, the elections were later deemed by the OSCE as riddled with irregularities, including ballot stuffing, intimidation of proxies and vote buying.

The government's anti-corruption efforts included the adoption of a Government Anti-Corruption Strategy and Implementation Action Plan in 2003, which focused on organisational and legal measures to combat corruption within the areas of banking, taxation, customs, health care, education, environment, licensing, public procurement, public administration and the judiciary. The Anti-Corruption Strategy was phased out in 2006 and was substituted by a 2009-2012 Anticorruption Strategy. In addition, a special Anti-Corruption Council and a Monitoring Committee were set up in 2004 to implement measures provided for in the Anti-Corruption Strategy. Furthermore, the Transparency International Global Corruption Report 2009 notes several positive changes in Armenia's anti-corruption legislation, including the Law on Fixed Payments, the Law on the Organisation and Implementation of Inspections, and the Law on the Declaration of Property and Income, all adopted in 2007. Nevertheless, although some high-ranking officials have been dismissed on charges of bribery and corruption, the public and NGOs remain largely critical of the results of the anti-corruption policy. Based on a new anti-corruption strategy for 2008–2012, the government has launched a campaign against corruption, combining legislative measures and reform of public services, with an emphasis on tax and customs agencies.

In recent years, Armenia has been implementing an ambitious programme of reforms, improving tax and customs regulations, restructuring the banking sector, and liberalising its economy. However, widespread and systemic corruption in government bureaucracy coupled with inconsistent implementation of laws, weaken the state institutions and restrict their efficiency. In order to reduce bureaucracy and decrease the opportunities for corruption, one-stop shops have been established for citizens and companies to deal with public officials. Furthermore, several governmental internet portals have been launched to make the regulatory processes more transparent. Nevertheless, companies continue to report that they encounter a complex business environment and a high volume of demands for bribes. For instance, according to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, more than 90% of the surveyed SMEs cite corruption in the private sector as the most serious obstacle to business growth in Armenia. According to the Transparency International Armenia 2006, 63% of household respondents surveyed believe that corruption had increased in the previous three years, while 79% stated that the government's anti-corruption programme had been ineffective. Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2009 reports that 43% of the Armenian households surveyed report having paid a bribe the previous year, while 48% believe that the government's fight against corruption is ineffective. With these figures, Armenia is placed in the second group of nations 'reported to be most affected by bribery', according to the Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2009. Nonetheless, the political analyst Eduard Mamikonian suggests that it is too early to give an evaluation of the anti-corruption campaign.

Business and Corruption

Armenia has witnessed rapid economic growth in recent years, mainly driven by the two leading sectors; construction and services. Encouraged by economic reforms, foreign direct investment rose by 209% between 2006 and 2007, according to the US Commercial Service 2008. However, due to the global financial crisis in 2008, Armenia has witnessed a 29% trade deficit and 10.2% inflation rate, which has contributed to a substantial pull-out of investor capital. Invest in Armenia informs that the government intends to tackle this by increasing spending on infrastructure projects and by providing SMEs with more loans. Despite the government's adoption and implementation of anti-corruption strategies, corruption remains a major problem in Armenia, as emphasised in the GRECO Evaluation Report on Armenia 2006. For a small, landlocked country like Armenia, corruption threatens to discourage both domestic and foreign investor confidence, even though investment policies in Armenia are among the most liberal in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Although a number of reforms have been implemented successfully, Armenia still needs to address a broader range of issues to meet international standards of good governance. As outlined by GRECO, these issues include combating corruption and nepotism, limiting the influence of the executive over the judiciary, passing uniformly applicable legislation on licences, taxes and customs, as well as strengthening the banking sector. In addition, as outlined in the US Commercial Service 2008, the economic reform agenda must be completed, since too many loopholes exist in the current legislation.

In Armenia government and business elites are strongly interlinked. High ranking officials regularly invest in strategic industries, government members control private companies and influential elites treat state companies as private property. For instance, according to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2008, much of the commodity-based sectors, such as energy and banking, have become monopolised by alliances between political and business elites. These 'closed' sectors contribute to the lack of transparency and accountability of the government. In a similar vein, Freedom House 2009 reports that the key industries in Armenia remain in the hands of oligarchs and influential elites. According to the executive director of the Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center (Transparency International Armenia), Varuzhan Hoktanyan, the intertwining of business and politics gives free rein to those companies that do not challenge the authorities politically and are very often drawn into various political processes, as reported by ArmeniaNow.

Among business executives surveyed in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010, corruption is identified as the most problematic factor for doing business in Armenia, followed by tax regulations and inefficient government bureaucracy. Similarly, the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2009 reports that almost 40% of the surveyed companies consider corruption a major constraint to their operations and 11.5% expect to make informal payments to 'get things done'. In contrast, according to the Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2009, corruption within the business and private sector is perceived as less widespread as compared to other sectors - only 15% of the surveyed households gave it a score of 5 on a 5-point scale (1 'not and all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt'). The EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2005, reports that companies spend an average of 1.2% of sales profits on bribes. Although corruption affects all types of companies, it is reported to put particularly disproportionate pressure upon SMEs. The high perception of corruption is supported by the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, which reveals that 90% of the surveyed SMEs identify corruption and bribery in the public sector as a major constraint on conducting business. Moreover, bribes as a share of annual sales are much higher for SMEs, for which they are estimated to amount to 10% of the annual revenues. Transparency International Armenia 2006 emphasises that corruption is the main impediment to the growth of SMEs operating in Armenia. Companies are recommended to develop, implement and strengthen integrity systems and to conduct extensive due diligence when planning to invest and when already doing business in Armenia.

Regulatory Environment

Corruption is institutionalised in Armenia and permeates through all levels of government, including the regulatory bodies. SMEs encounter two types of corruption in Armenia; high level corruption through the abuse of political authority and administrative corruption exercised through middle and lower-level public officials. Salaries of civil servants have been raised in recent years and training has been undertaken to raise awareness among public officials about corruption. However, according to the Transparency International Armenia Corruption Perception in Armenia 2007 survey, 63% of respondents report a substantial increase in corruption over the past three years, and in Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2009, 33% of Armenian households perceive public officials to be 'extremely corrupt'. This perception is supported by Freedom House 2009, according to which, bribery and nepotism are reported to be common among government bureaucrats, and government officials are rarely prosecuted or removed for abuse of office. The Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006 reports that more than 90% of SMEs identify legislation regulating SMEs as the greatest problem for doing business in Armenia.

The Armenian business regulations lack transparency in their implementation. By law, government officials are banned from engaging in business activities, but in practice, they often have extensive business interests and many parliamentary deputies run companies on the side. Similarly, the Law on the Disclosure of Property and Income of government officials is easily circumvented since the financial statements of these officials are not verified by tax authorities. Furthermore, the selective and non-transparent application of tax, customs and regulatory rules, as well as the weak enforcement of court decisions increase the opportunities for corruption. In general, SMEs believe that it is necessary to have personal connections with public officials in order to run a successful business. US Commercial Service 2008 characterises Armenian banking supervision as relatively well-developed and in accordance with the Basel Core Principles, but it warns that bureaucratic procedures can be burdensome.

Companies surveyed in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 identify tax regulations and inefficient government bureaucracy to be among the most problematic factors for doing business. This is supported by the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2009, in which companies report that senior management spend more than 10% of their time each year dealing with requirements of government regulation. According to the EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2005, around 5% of senior management's time is spent dealing with public officials about the application and interpretation of laws and regulations, and to maintain access to public services. Nearly 35% of the companies surveyed said that regulatory policies were a problem for doing business in Armenia. Both figures are below the regional average of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Regulatory changes can be a particular problem for foreign investors.

Armenia's main sectors attracting foreign investment are telecommunications, mining and metallurgy, trade, construction, information technologies and hotel services. According to Armenian Development Agency, a 'one-stop shop' for investors, incentives such as tax holidays, and the ability to carry forward losses indefinitely, are given to foreign investors in Armenia. Foreigners are not permitted to own land in Armenia, only if the foreign company register as an Armenian company. In addition, the Law on Foreign Investment protects foreign investors against land nationalisation, expropriation and confiscation, except in cases of state emergency. In these cases, the constitution provides for a compensation paid in advance. A 2007 Law on Commercial Arbitration provides investors with a greater number of options for resolving their commercial disputes. By law, disputes may be brought before any court, provided that the Armenian government is not a party to the dispute. The Economic Court was abolished in 2008, and a new specialised administrative court was established to hear, among others, commercial disputes. The Law on Arbitration Courts and Arbitration Procedures provides rules for the settlement of disputes by arbitration. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of laws in Armenia.

Judicial System

Individual Corruption

According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2009, the judiciary is perceived as the most corrupt institution in Armenia. This perception is supported by the Transparency International Armenia Corruption Perception in Armenia 2007 survey, which cites the judicial system among the most corrupt structures in the country. In general, Armenian citizens are reluctant to go to courts, because the judicial system is considered as corrupt, inefficient, and heavily influenced by the executive. According to Freedom House 2009, poor legal training of judges remains a major concern.

Business Corruption

Despite ongoing judicial reform efforts, the majority of businesspeople and investors still do not consider the court system as a viable option of legal recourse. Business executives largely fear that corruption and nepotism will determine the outcome of court decisions. In addition, judges in Armenia are not considered by companies as competent enough to handle commercial issues, as indicated the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006. Given the lack of trust in the court system, settlement of disputes is very important for foreign investors. However, international arbitration options are excluded in disputes involving the Armenian government (in this case, only bilateral investment treaties provide for international arbitration).

According to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, almost half of the surveyed SMEs in the report state that informal payments are 'always/often' necessary in order to speed up the judicial process in courts. A much higher percentage of SMEs distrusts the courts, referring to ambiguity of laws and their arbitrary application as main reasons. According to Freedom House 2009, an inefficient and often corrupt judicial system also hinders the enforcement of private property rights and the establishment of companies in the country.

Political Corruption

Judicial corruption and lack of judicial independence are serious problems in Armenia. By law, the judicial branch is independent and impartial, but in practice the system is subordinated to the executive. Freedom House 2008 reports that the amount of politically engineered trials has increased in recent years. For example, former President Robert Kocharian sacked the judge Pargev Ohanian in 2007, after the latter acquitted two business executives from the coffee processing company Royal Armenia. The two businessmen were arrested on very controversial fraud charges after they had publicly admitted to corruption in the customs services. Subsequently, the Office of the Prosecutor General appealed to the review court, which reversed the initial verdict and sentenced the two business executives to prison terms. It is widely believed that the Mr. Ohanian was sacked because he refused to endorse accusations levelled by the government.

As of 1 January 2008, a new judicial code aimed at increasing judicial independence and transparency came into force. According to this code, prosecutors lose their right to conduct pre-trial investigations. Freedom House 2008 reports that this change is likely to yield improvements in the judicial system. Furthermore, an administrative court, convened in January 2009, handles litigation between citizens and the state, and aims at better protecting citizens' rights. The fact that the new system is based on case law is expected to make it more transparent and give it more independence from the executive, as suggested by Freedom House 2009. In addition, salaries of more than 200 judges, including the Prosecutor General, were permanently doubled in January 2008, as part of the anti-corruption reform. According to the Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center (Transparency International Armenia) press officer, Vakhtang Siradeghyan, the rise in the salaries of judges will not promote the reduction of corruption risks. Instead large-scale and wide-ranging changes are required in order to combat corruption, as reported by ArmeniaNow.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2010:
- Enforcing a commercial contract in Armenia requires a company to go through 48 procedures, taking 285 days at a cost of 19% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010:
- Business executives give the Armenian judiciary's level of independence from influences of government, citizens, or companies a score of 2.3 on a 7-point scale (1 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 2.8 and 2.9 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009:
- 29% of households surveyed consider the judiciary to be 'extremely corrupt'.

- 14% of households who had contact with the judiciary in 2008 report to have paid a bribe.

- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 3.3 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- 33.5% of companies surveyed believe that the court system is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.

- 15.5% of companies surveyed identify the functioning of the courts as major business constraint.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 48% of the surveyed SMEs state that informal payments are 'always/often' required to speed up judicial process in the court.

- 78% of the surveyed SMEs have no trust in the judicial system.

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2005:
- 13% of companies surveyed stated that bribes are frequent in dealing with courts.

- 22% of the companies surveyed reported that the functioning of the judiciary poses a problem for conducting business.

- 51% of companies stated that they were confident that the legal system would uphold property and contract rights.

Police

Individual Corruption

The Armenian police are perceived to be among the most corrupt institutions in the country. This is supported by Freedom House 2009, according to which corruption is considered to be a serious problem in law enforcement. Traffic police, in particular, are notorious for soliciting bribes. According to the head of the NGO, Achilles Society for Protection of Drivers' Rights, Eduard Hovhanisian, corruption in the traffic police results from unclear definitions of the traffic law, which allow the traffic inspectors to interpret the law at their discretion. The Achilles Society aims at reducing corruption in the traffic through educating drivers about their rights in the traffic and through the Society's active involvement in traffic police commissions, seeking to decrease the number of power abuses by traffic police officers.

In 2003, the Department for Internal Security was created under the Police with the aim to combat corruption. Within this campaign, the traffic officers who registered traffic violations were offered bonuses. The Achilles Society did not receive any complaints about bribes in the first three months of the campaign. However, these improvements have not resulted in lasting changes. Hence, the basic means of extorting money by the traffic police officers are still widely practiced, as reported by ArmeniaNow. According to this source, it is a common practice for police officers to illegally confiscate a driver's licence if the driver argues that his or her rights have been violated. In order to have a licence reinstated, a driver must pay about USD 570. Facing that sum, the driver might favour accepting the traffic officer's 'negotiation' of settlement.

Business Corruption

The World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 reveals that companies identify Armenia to perform poorly in relation to the reliability of police services to protect them from crime. Similarly, according to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, SMEs in Armenia are reported not to have any confidence in law enforcement bodies and are generally very reluctant to go to the police. Some companies report paying protection money to the police or to security companies as a necessary business expense.

Political Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2007, the law enforcement agencies are under strong political control from the government. A judicial code enacted in 2008, enables the police and the national security service to conduct pre-trial investigations, which used to be the prerogative of the prosecutors. It is arguable whether this change will contribute to a greater transparency in the law enforcement system given the influence of the government and the mistreatment of witnesses in police custody, as reported by Freedom House 2008. For instance, in May 2007, the restaurant owner, Levon Gulyan, who had witnessed a shooting, died after falling out of a window while being questioned at the Ministry of Internal Affairs. A medical report by foreign independent experts concluded that there was some evidence that Gulyan had been beaten prior to the fall, as reported by Freedom House 2008.

The number of instances of corruption reported to the law enforcement authorities has doubled in Armenia, as reported in a March 2009 article by Armtown. According to the head of a police directorate, Hunan Poghosian, law enforcement bodies recorded 392 corruption-related crimes in 2008. However, it is reported that when law enforcement bodies are prosecuted for graft, very few of them face prison charges. In July 2008, the head of the police department for passports and visas, Alvina Zakarian, was discharged on bribery charges, and steps were made to ensure that the department fully complies with laws and regulations foreseeing simple and transparent procedures for issuing passports, visas and permits. According to the Transparency International Armenia Corruption Perception in Armenia 2007 survey, the fact that several mid-level officials have been prosecuted for graft illustrates that the government considers corruption to be a problem.

Frequency

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010:
- Business executives give the Armenian police a score of 3.4 on a 7-point scale (1 'cannot be relied upon at all' and 7 'can always be relied upon').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009:
- 26% of households who had contact with the police in 2008 report to have paid a bribe.

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- 31% of companies surveyed identify crime, theft and disorder as a major constraint on doing business.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2007:
- Citizens give the police a score of 3.5 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2005:
- Companies report that they were inspected by municipal police an average of 0.2 times annually, the average duration of these inspections lasting 15 minutes.

Licences, Infrastructure and Public Utilities

Individual Corruption

Many citizens identify the process of obtaining licences and permits as widely corrupt, as illustrated by the Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2009. Citizens frequently report either offering or being compelled to pay a bribe in connection with obtaining permits. Citizens also perceive corruption in relation to getting utilities connected and repaired as widespread.

Business Corruption

SMEs report complicated and time-consuming procedures when obtaining licences and permits. According to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, almost two out of three SMEs admit that informal payments are required to obtain community permits. Transparency International Armenia 2006 reveals that the average bribe paid by surveyed households in order to get licences, certificates and permits issued is USD 300.

SMEs consider obtaining public utilities to often involve corruption and demands for bribes. Acquiring a telephone line, getting connected to power and water supply systems and obtaining community permits require bribes. Companies report that facilitation payments, sometimes in form of gifts, are necessary when dealing with licences issuing authorities. For instance, it is especially difficult to get water and sewerage permits and fire certificates, as indicated by Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006.

Political Corruption

At the political level, some sectors of the economy are considered strategically important. Commodity-based sectors, as well as energy and banking sectors are protected from the competitive pressures of foreign bidders.

High-ranking officials, domestic business executives and politicians are able to deal with the red tape associated with licensing procedures and obtaining permits by either paying a small sum of money or making no payments at all, as opposed to ordinary citizens.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2010:
- The number of annual licensing procedures related to opening a warehouse is 20, slightly below the regional average, while the average time spent dealing with licences is 137 days - slightly more than half the regional average.

- The associated cost of dealing with these licences is approximately 104% of income per capita and several times less the regional average.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010:
- Business executives give the government regulations in Armenia a score of 3.2 on a 7-point scale (1 'extremely burdensome' and 7 'not burdensome at all').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- 11% of companies expect to give gifts to get an operating licence.

- 22% of companies expect to give gifts to get a construction permit.

- 7.5% of companies expect to give gifts to get a phone connection.

- Over 5.5% of companies identify business licensing and permits as a major constraint on doing business.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009:
- 23% of households who had contact with registry and permit services in 2008 report to have paid a bribe.

- 24% of households who had contact with medical services in 2008 report to have paid a bribe.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 49% of the surveyed SMEs state that informal payments are 'always/often' required to get installed electricity, water, and telephone line.

- 64% of SMEs report that informal payments are 'always/often' required in order to obtain a construction permit.

- 64% of SMEs say informal payments are 'always/often' required to obtain community permits.

- 97% of SMEs report that informal payments are 'always' required for fire-fighting and sanitation services.

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2005:
- 12.5% of companies say that bribery is frequent in order to obtain business licences and permits - the CIS average of 19%.

- The percentage of companies saying that bribery is frequent when getting connected to and maintaining public utilities (electricity and telephone) was almost 6% in 2005.

- 5% of companies stated that bribery was a frequent occurrence in dealing with occupational health and safety inspections.

Land Administration

Individual Corruption

According to the Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2009, a considerable amount of Armenian households point to the interaction with land authorities as an area where bribes are often demanded. Moreover, households perceive land matters to be distorted by grand and political corruption.

In 2006, the Parliament passed an amendment to the legislation on private property, which enables the government to confiscate land under 'exceptional cases defined by the law' and with 'commensurate compensation' paid to the property owners. However, according to Freedom House 2008, irregular procedures have been applied when expropriating land for construction of expensive residential and office buildings. Many people have not received appropriate compensation and have instead been threatened when they protested. The former national Ombudsman, Larisa Alaverdian, Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center (Transparency International Armenia) and several other organisations have described the process of land confiscation as 'illegal'.

Business Corruption

The constitution does not permit land ownership by foreigners. However, the US Commercial Service 2008 reports that foreign companies registered as Armenian companies have the right to own land. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Investment Law protects foreign investors against land expropriation, except in cases of state emergency. In case of expropriation, the constitution provides for a compensation paid in advance. In general, land administration is seen as efficient, as it takes less than a week to register property.

According to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, land administration is considered by SMEs to be among the least corrupt services in Armenia.

Political Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2007, political corruption within the sphere of privatisations is widespread. This is supported by Freedom House 2009, according to which Armenian oligarchs have received preferential treatment in the early stages of privatisation. The executive director of the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses, Narine Mailyan, reports that high-ranking officials can easily surpass property regulations and purchase government-owned property with a small amount of money if they enjoy the President's or Prime Minister's patronage.

The Chamber of Control has revealed cases of abuse of power in the Armavir region in connection to illegal sale of community lands. Here land was sold for a small amount of money in 2008, and then re-sold for a 50-100 times higher price, as reported by ArmeniaNow.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2010:
- It takes an average of 3 procedures and 4 days (several times less the regional average) at a cost of 0.3% of the property value to register property and secure property rights in Armenia.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010:
- Business executives give the property rights in Armenia a score of 4.2 on a 7-point scale (1 'very weak' and 7 'very strong').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009:
- 11% of the households surveyed reported to have paid a bribe to land services in 2008.

- 43% of households consider grand or political corruption in land matters to be a 'very serious problem'.

- 48% of respondents consider bribes to land authorities to obtain favourable decisions a 'very serious problem' in Armenia.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 35.5% of the surveyed SMEs state that informal payments are 'always/often' required in order to register property.

- 54% of the surveyed SMEs state that informal payments are required to register ownership rights.

Tax Administration

Individual Corruption

According to the EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2005, bribery connected to taxes and tax collection is widespread in Armenia and it is common practice to 'negotiate' a fine with tax officials if small violations of tax laws are discovered during audits. This is supported by the Transparency International Global Corruption Report 2009, in which a considerable amount of households report to pay informal fees when interacting with tax authorities.

Business Corruption

According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010, tax regulations are considered as the second most problematic factor for conducting business in Armenia. Similarly, the EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2005 reports that informal payments are frequently made when dealing with tax officials. According to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, nine out of ten SMEs identify the taxation system and tax collection as a major problem, impeding the development of SMEs in Armenia. In addition, it is reported that one out of three SMEs were often forced to pay bribes to avoid/reduce taxes.

Armenian and foreign exporting companies report that VAT refunds from their exported goods are regularly delayed. According to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, information on availability of tax exemptions can be difficult to obtain for companies.

Political Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2007, large companies who are favoured by the government often avoid paying taxes due to their political connections.

A government-drafted bill that empowers tax authorities to deploy agents in large companies suspected of tax evasion was adopted by the Parliament in September 2009, as reported by ArmeniaNow. According to the bill, special tax officials are allowed unrestricted access to large companies' financial documentation and other business operations with the aim of ensuring that these companies do not evade taxes. It should be noted that tax bodies will assign their agents only to companies whose annual budget exceeds USD 10.7 million. According to Vahan Hovhannisyan, an MP, this measure would 'spare the importer but hit the producer'.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2010:
- Medium-sized companies must make 50 tax payments annually, taking 958 hours to complete at a total tax rate of 36.2% of profits.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009:
- 18% of households who had contact with tax revenue services throughout 2008 report to have paid a bribe.

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- 13.5% of the surveyed companies expect to give gifts in meetings with tax officials.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 90% of the surveyed SMEs identify taxation system and tax collection as a major problem, impeding the development of SMEs in Armenia.

- 60% of the surveyed SMEs report that informal payments are 'always/often' required to get tax penalty provisions reduced.

- 36.5% of SMEs were often forced to pay bribes to avoid/reduce taxes.

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2005:
- 18% of companies state that bribery is frequent in their dealings with the tax authorities.

- On average, companies reported being inspected 2.5 times per year by tax agencies, the average duration of each of these visits being 3.8 hours.

Customs Administration

Individual Corruption

Global Integrity 2007 reports that corruption and informal payments are routine in the customs service. This is supported by Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2009, which emphasises that the customs administration is considered to be one of the most corrupt services in Armenia. According to Transparency International Armenia 2006, the majority of household respondents surveyed perceive the customs system as 'partially corrupt', 'corrupt' or 'very corrupt'.

Business Corruption

Customs administration is considered by SMEs as one of the most corrupt institutions in Armenia. The EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2005 reports that informal payments are frequently made when dealing with customs officials. In a similar vein, the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006 reveals that almost two out of three SMEs expect to make informal payments to get customs clearance. Corruption in customs administration has also been highlighted by President Serzh Sargsian, who has expressed concerns about the State Customs Committee's (SCC) unrestricted authority and ability to assess the value of imported commodities, drawing attention to the extensive smuggling of goods by businesspeople who 'conspire' with customs officials, as well as other attempts at evading customs duties, as reported by Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2009.

In 2002, the Ministry of State Revenue and Customs administration adopted a code of conduct for customs officials. In addition, an anti-corruption strategy group was formed to prepare an action plan to combat corruption in customs services. However, as reported by the EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2005, corruption in the customs increased considerably in the time-frame 2002-2005.

SMEs should note that the government has granted foreign investors certain incentives, such as exemptions from customs duty on certain commodities. For example, property imported to Armenia as part of equity capital is exempt from customs duty. Nonetheless, customs clearances can be very problematic.

Political Corruption

Despite recent reforms and improvements in customs service, Global Integrity 2007 reports that customs and excise laws are not being enforced uniformly and without discrimination. Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2009 reveals rampant corruption in the higher echelons of the customs administration in Armenia. According to the report, the coffee processing company, Royal Armenia (RA), had claimed that the State Customs Committee (SCC) had periodically discriminated against the company, ignoring company invoices and setting inflated customs prices for coffee, compared with other coffee importers. The head of the RA, Gagik Hakobyan, had alleged that the SCC's management had demanded bribes for RA's shipments, which the company had refused to pay, seeing this refusal as the primary cause of the SCC's actions. This led the National Security Service to file a criminal case against RA and initiate a criminal investigation. The charges included smuggling, tax evasion and fraud. The RA management argued that the accusations were unfounded. During the trial in 2007, the judge Pargev Ohanyan acquitted RA's leadership on the grounds that the argument presented was based on assumptions rather than evidence. As a result, the judge was sacked, while the review court reversed the initial verdict and sentenced RA's head and managing director to prison terms, allegedly for revealing corruption in the customs.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2010:
- On average, a standard export shipment of goods requires 5 documents, takes 17 days and costs USD 1,731 per container.

- On average, a standard import shipment of goods requires 7 documents, takes 20 days and costs USD 2,096 per container.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010:
- Business executives give the efficiency of customs procedures (formalities regulating the entry and exit of merchandise) in Armenia a score of 2.7 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'extremely efficient').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- 26.5% of the trade companies surveyed identify Armenian customs and trade regulations as a major constraint on doing business.

- 6% of companies surveyed expect to give gifts to get an import licence.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 63.5% of the surveyed SMEs expect to 'always/often' pay bribes to get customs clearance.

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2005:
- 13.5% of the companies surveyed report that bribery frequently takes place in customs.

- 29% of the companies surveyed reported that customs regulations represent a significant obstacle to doing business in Armenia.

Public Procurement and Contracting

Business Corruption

Public procurement regulations can be found at the official website of the procurement system of Armenia (in Armenian). According to Global Integrity 2007, obligatory publishing of tender proposals is allegedly not enforced and no corruption cases involving public procurement civil servants have been investigated. The chief expert of the Ministry of Trade and Economic Development, Ashot Sarkhoshyan, reports that the most valuable projects are not published at all.

Although the 2004 Law on Procurement envisaged a more transparent procurement process through the establishment of electronic procurement, companies continue to witness non-transparent practices. Sometimes the state only shares information with selected bidders, generation accusations of pre-selecting winners. In other instances, the terms and conditions for bidding are specified so that few companies can actually bid (single sourcing). Companies are recommended to use a specialised public procurement due diligence tool in order to mitigate the corruption risks associated with public procurement in Armenia.

See more on public procurement under 'Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives' in the Initiatives section.

Political Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2007, political corruption frequently occurs under public procurement processes. For instance, business elites with political ties are usually favoured over small companies when allocating municipal land.

Frequency

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010:
- Business executives give the diversion of public funds due to corruption a score of 2.8 on a 7-point scale (1 'common' and 7 'never occurs').

- Business executives give the favouritism of government officials when deciding upon policies and contracts a score of 2.9 on a 7-point scale (1 'always show favouritism' and 7 'never show favouritism').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- Less than 2% of the companies surveyed expect to give gifts to secure a government contract.

- The average value of gift given to secure a government contract amounts to 0.1% of the contract value.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 63% of the surveyed SMEs state that informal payments are 'always/often' necessary to win a public procurement contract.

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2005:
- 11% of companies state that bribery is frequently needed in order to obtain government contracts compared to the CIS average of 13% in 2005.

Environment, Natural Resources and Extractive Industry

Business Corruption

Environmental considerations have been recognised as essential elements in the overall reform programme. The government has raised concerns regarding the over-exploitation of natural resources, such as the depletion of water resources, erosion of soil and biodiversity degradation.

Natural resources include zinc, molybdenum, gold, silver, bauxite, obsidian, and semiprecious stones, as well as marble, granite, and other building materials. Armenia has no natural gas and oil deposits.

Companies report that they pay bribes during environmental inspections in Armenia. This should be seen in the context of the high levels of corruption in relation to different kinds of government inspections. According to the EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2005, the frequency of informal payments to environmental inspectors has increased in the time-frame 2002-2005. In a similar vein, according to Transparency International's Corruption & the Environment 2006, commercial corruption within the environmental sphere, particularly in relation to illegal logging/ timber theft, is pervasive in Armenia. For instance, according to the report, an average timber volume of nearly 4,000 cubic metres was illegally harvested each year between 1998 and 2002. It has been reported that this illegal logging had been executed by businesspeople who were paying bribes to government staff and officials in return for not prosecuting these cases.

Political Corruption

Despite the government's legislative attempts to crackdown on corruption within the forestry sector and decrease illegal logging, efforts have come up short, as the Parliament has yet to adopt many of the measures that will make environmental anti-corruption laws enforceable, according to Transparency International's Corruption & the Environment 2006. The report reveals that in the period 1998-2002, 55% of the total number of illegal logging cases registered by government officials was settled out of court, however, only 27% of the fines for out-of-court settlements were collected and submitted to the government.

Frequency

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2005:
- 4.5% of the companies surveyed stated that bribery was frequent in their dealings with environmental inspections in 2005.

- The companies surveyed reported being inspected an average of 0.4 times annually by environmental agencies with each visit averaging 35 minutes.

Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives

  • Legislation: Armenia has introduced some anti-corruption legislation in recent years and ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in 2007 and the Council of Europe Civil and Criminal Law Conventions on Corruption in 2005 and 2006 respectively. The Armenian National Assembly approved changes to the Criminal Code in May 2005. In 2006, a draft law on amendments to the Criminal Code was presented to the National Assembly by the government. Other relevant legislation includes the Law on Procurement, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Law against Laundering of Illicit Proceeds, and the Law on the Freedom of Information. The Criminal Code criminalises the major forms of corrupt activity, including active and passive bribery, attempted corruption, extortion, bribing a foreign official, money laundering and abuse of office. It also forbids officials to receive gifts, to hold additional jobs and to engage in private business activities. The GRECO Compliance Report on Armenia 2008 concludes that although a number of positive anti-corruption measures have been implemented in Armenia, such as guidance on conflicts of interest, the introduction of a code of ethics, the verification of property and income declarations, they do not fully comply with international standards. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of legislation in Armenia.

  • Government Strategies: Armenia adopted a Government Anti-Corruption Strategy and Implementation Action Plan in November 2003. The Strategy emphasises providing organisational and legal measures in order to prevent corruption within the spheres of banking, taxation, customs, health care, education, environment, licensing, public procurement, public administration and the judiciary. The Anti-Corruption Strategy is implemented by an Anti-Corruption Action Plan. A special post of Advisor to the President on Anti-Corruption Policy was created to coordinate anti-corruption activities. The anti-corruption strategy ended in 2006, and a 2009-2012 Anticorruption Strategy has been set up. The 2009-2012 Anti-Corruption Strategy involves the implementation of existing laws, and is based on the assumption that taxation and customs are the areas which are most affected by corruption and, hence, targets these areas.

  • Anti-Corruption Council: In conformity with a Presidential Decree of June 2004, an Anti-Corruption Council was set up which pursues the following goals: 1) to compare activities of the relevant bodies during the elaboration of measures to prevent corruption, 2) to implement measures provided for in the Anti-Corruption Strategy and international obligations assumed by Armenia and 3) to maintain co-operation with regional and international organisations in the process of fighting corruption.

  • Monitoring Committee of the Anti-Corruption Council: In accordance with the Presidential Decree of June 2004, a Monitoring Committee was established under the Anti-Corruption Council. The objective of the Committee is to assess the implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy, including 1) observing the performance of the Strategy with respect to Armenia's international obligations and implements proposals by international organisations, 2) monitoring the implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy and departmental anti-corruption programmes and 3) making proposals concerning the improvement of the anti-corruption mechanisms. However, Global Integrity 2007 is very critical of these anti-corruption agencies, evaluating their performance as 'very weak'. For instance, the public policy expert of Transparency International Armenia, Varuzhan Hoktanyan, reports that both the Anti-corruption Council and Committee act in the interest of the government, lack public accountability and are underfunded and powerless in practice.

  • Prosecutor General: Within the Prosecutor General's Office, a special Department for the Fight Against Corruption has been set up to combat corruption. Prosecutors working within the Department receive their information from law enforcement agencies and are empowered to initiate investigations in relation to corruption cases. According to Global Integrity 2007, the Department very seldom initiates investigations into allegations of corruption by law enforcement officials independently. In May 2007, a new Law on the Office of the Public Prosecutor brought several important changes related to corruption. According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2009, these changes include new procedures for appointing the prosecutor general and prosecutors, as well as a new system for sanctioning prosecutors. The law also establishes a new commission of ethics and a new system of remuneration for prosecutors and other employees working in the offices of public prosecutors.

  • Chamber of Control of the National Assembly (COC, in Armenian): The COC is an equivalent to the Auditor General and audits the financial legislation and the effectiveness of execution of the state budget. The COC, which audits state departments twice a year, has registered a misuse of about USD 570,000 in the Armavir region and at the Ministry of Culture, as reported by ArmeniaNow. As a result, in June 2009, Deputy Minister of Culture Gagik Gyurjyan was released of his duties. The Chairman of the COC Ishkhan Zaqaryan reported that the COC has filed 9 cases at the Prosecutor General's office, which are currently being processed. In addition, according to Zaqaryan, 80% of the embezzled money has been returned to the state budget. Over the past year, this is the second case of serious disclosure; the first case was in November 2008, when in five ministries violations equal to USD 3 million were registered, for which, however, no high-ranking official was called to account, according to ArmeniaNow. This is supported by the Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center (Transparency International Armenia), which reported in September 2009 that the COC's activity is restricted to 'sensational detections' in ministries and tends to end by returning the money to the state budget and with no high-ranking official being punished as a result of the detection. Access the COC's reports (in Armenian).

  • Ombudsman: The Human Rights Defender (Ombudsman) is elected by the National Assembly. According to Armenian law, the Ombudsman may initiate investigations, but he/she cannot intervene into judicial processes. However, Global Integrity 2007 reports that the current Ombudsman, Armen Harutyunian, has never initiated any investigations, and that he is subjected to political interference. The Human Rights Defender produces annual reports which are delivered during the first sitting of the National Assembly's spring session. The annual report is also presented to the media and relevant NGOs. Access the Human Rights Defender's Annual Report 2008 (in Armenian). According to Global Integrity 2007, these reports are usually ignored and sometimes even criticised by the government. The current Ombudsman has several times publicly criticised the government system of Armenia, characterising it as 'oligarchic' and 'repressive', the judiciary as lacking independence and the law enforcement bodies as 'incompetent'. According to the Ombudsman reports, the main complaint of the citizens concerns the judiciary, prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies; these structures are considered to be the most corrupt, as noted by ArmeniaNow. However, whether this critique can transform into actions in the future, reducing political interference and bringing about a change in the system, is yet unknown.

  • E-Governance: The UNDP launched a USD 35,000 e-governance system for a project run by the Ministry of Territorial Administration of Armenia in 2005. As a result of this project, several governmental portals have been launched, including the portals of the National Assembly of Armenia, the Human Rights Defender's Office, the judicial system, the Customs Service (in Armenian), State Revenue Committee (in Armenian), the Prosecutor General's Office, and the government of Armenia. In addition, the government has created Armenian Development Agency, which has been designed as "one-stop shop" agency for investors in Armenia, assisting them in setting up a company. Many regions have participated in pilot e-governance initiatives to offer services and information to citizens and companies. The project is in its final phase and has been scheduled to end in 2009. The objective of e-governance implementation has been to reduce corruption and eliminate administrative barriers for citizens and companies interacting with the government. However, the transparency of this initiative could be discussed. For instance, the government portal excludes the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The service of public procurement is available under the Ministry of Justice, while the website of the State Revenue Committee incorporates both the customs and the taxes.

  • Public Procurement: The Law on Procurement, adopted in 2004, foresees electronic procurement and aims at making the process more transparent. According to the law, major procurements require competitive bidding. Notices of public procurements can be found at the official website of the procurement system of Armenia (in Armenian). However, Global Integrity 2007 reports that the provision to ensure competitive bidding is not enforced satisfactorily at the local level. For instance, according to the chief expert of the Ministry of Trade and Economic Development, Ashot Sarkhoshyan, there is no process of advertising major public tenders. In order to not attract attention, tenders are often published in local newspapers in very small letters. Generally, the law on procurement is ineffective because companies guilty of major violations of procurement regulations are not prohibited from participating in future procurement bids. In addition, the Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center 2007 (Transparency International Armenia) reports that public procurement is often a mediated process, as a result of which the procurement prices increase. Hence, regulations for public procurement in Armenia are regarded by many companies as non-transparent and selectively applied.

  • Whistle-Blowing: According to Global Integrity 2007, whistle-blowing measures in Armenia are very weak. No law exists in Armenia on the protection of whistleblowers. According to the media contact at the Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center (Transparency International Armenia), Vakhtang Siradegyan, witnessing against corruption in Armenia may have repercussions for whistleblowers. For instance, the head of Royal Armenia Ltd., a coffee processing company, was imprisoned for having reported a corruption case in the customs services. He was first acquitted, but later imprisoned and sentenced to six years in prison. Global Integrity 2007 reports that the offices of the governors of Shirak and Lori regions, among others, have established hotline services, through which citizens can report on corruption. In November 2008, the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner, Thomas Hammarberg, expressed his general dissatisfaction with the methods of interrogating witnesses in Armenia, according to Freedom House 2009.

  • General Comments on the Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives: The government of Armenia has made little progress in implementing anti-corruption initiatives. The three-year anti-corruption strategy ended in 2006, and a new 2009-2012 strategy has begun. The problems include the elite enjoying immunity from legal prosecution, and witnesses, whistleblowers and victims of corruption not being protected by the law. Freedom House 2009 highlights corruption as a major inhibitor of democratic development and public trust in government actions in Armenia and shows little confidence in the success of anti-corruption strategies.

Private Anti-Corruption Initiatives

  • Media: Freedom of speech and the press is guaranteed in Armenian law; however, the authorities notoriously limit press freedom in practice. According to Global Integrity 2007, journalists are able to publish corruption-related stories in the opposition or neutral media; however, pro-governmental media, especially state television and radio companies, censor corruption-related material. Most broadcast media depend on private financing and their reports tend to be supportive of the government, illustrating the symbiotic relationship between political and business elites. Media coverage of presidential and parliamentary elections continues to be biased in favour of pro-government parties. Media outlets which try to communicate alternative viewpoints often experience difficulties, such as sudden inspections by tax officials. Libel, defined in the Criminal Code as dissemination of defamatory information, remains a criminal offence. The independent media use self-censorship in order to avoid libel charges. Recent years have witnessed an increase in instances of violence towards journalists who have been assaulted, subjected to heavy fines, subjected to arson or imprisoned. The Internet, used by approximately 10% of the population, continues to offer alternative opinions and the government does not restrict access to web sites. In June 2008, the European Court found that the Armenian authorities violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) by repeatedly refusing to grant the A1 Plus, an opposition television station, a broadcasting licence, as reported by Freedom House 2009. In recent years, government pressure on media was exercised primarily through financial leverage by discouraging companies from advertising with disloyal media, according to Freedom House 2009. Armenia ranks 111th out of 175 countries on the Reporters Without Borders Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2009, and 151st of 195 countries by Freedom House 2009, which also describes the press environment in Armenia as 'not free'.

  • Civil Society: Civil society groups in Armenia are generally able to conduct their work without state interference. However, although legislation on NGOs was assessed to be in compliance with international standards by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, registration requirements for NGOs have been described as cumbersome and time-consuming by Freedom House 2009. According to Freedom House 2009, civil society in Armenia is relatively well developed when compared to the rest of the region. Around 4,000 NGOs are registered with the Ministry of Justice of Armenia, although only about 10% are active. Most civil society groups depend on foreign funding, for instance, diasporic funds. This has led to public perceptions of civic groups as foreign-funded companies rather than civil society organisations. One clear restriction on NGOs and non-profit organisations is that they are not permitted to participate in government tenders, which has implications for their sustainability. While Freedom House 2009 notes the presence and favourable activities of NGOs in the country, it criticises government hostility towards and opposition against efforts of NGOs. Eight NGOs will be awarded grants of the equivalent of USD 15,000-20,000 for their anti-corruption projects to be carried out until spring 2010, as reported by ArmeniaNow. The grants will be awarded by the US Agency for International Development's (USAID) Mobilizing Action against Corruption Project (MAAC).

  • Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center (Transparency International Armenia): Transparency International Armenia addresses corruption issues and carries out programmes to counter corruption. The latest publication concerns political corruption and consists of monitoring the use of financial resources in electoral campaigns. Transparency International Armenia's Anti-Corruption Strategy 2007-2010 specifically focuses on law enforcement and governmental accountability in Armenia.

  • Achilles Center: The Achilles Center for Protection of Drivers' Rights is an NGO that promotes the creation of a legal, well-informed and non-corrupt society. The Achilles Center's objectives include educating drivers about their rights in the traffic, involvement in traffic police commissions in order to reduce the number of power abuses by traffic police officers, and decreasing the level of corruption and increasing the transparency of traffic police entities. The Armenian and Russian versions of the website also provide drivers with a hotline service.

  • Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses (FSMB): The FSMB is a non-profit NGO that formed the Business Advocacy Network to improve the business environment of SMEs. The FSMB conducts surveys and publishes reports on combating corruption in Armenia, such as Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006.

Resources

The websites listed below provide useful facts on Armenia as well as contacts and tools for companies operating in Armenia:

 

Sources for further reading:

Conventions and Indices

UNCAC Status: Signed 19 May 2005. Ratified 8 March 2007.

Status on UNCAC Implementation
This field describes the country's status on the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Please note any declarations and reservations made upon ratification. The list of signatories can be found on the UNODC website. Read more about the UNCAC.

 

Other Relevant Conventions or Treaties:

 

Transparency CPI: 2009: 120/180 (Score: 2.7)

Transparency CPI
This field consists of the score for the country in question on the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International as well as its ranking.

 

World Bank CORR Index (-2.5 - +2.5): 2008: -0.54

World Bank Corruption Index
This field consists of the score for the country in question on the 'Control of Corruption' indicator in the World Bank Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot (GRICS): 1996-2008.

 

OECD Country Risk Classification (0-7): 2010: 6

Country Risk Classification
The classification of countries by risk category has the aim of providing OECD countries with a basis for calculating the premium interest rate to be charged to cover the risk of non-repayment of export credits. Countries are placed in risk categories 0 - 7, with 0 being the lowest risk category and thus the least expensive. Conversely, premium group 7 is the highest risk category. Each classification is comprised of 2 components: 1) an assessment of the country's economic/financial situation, and 2) its overall political stability. Access the complete list of OECD Country Risk Classification figures.

 

Data Verification:

Latest update: October 2009

Data verified by: Global Advice Network

Information Network

 

Relevant Organisations

 

Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center (Transparency International Armenia)

Aygestan 9th Street, House 6
Yerevan 0025

Tel: +374 10 56 99 10 / 10 55 30 69
Fax: +374 10 57 13 99
E-mail: info(at)transparency.am

Local Transparency International chapter.

Achilles Center

Kutuzov Street 37, 21
Yerevan 375033

Tel: +374 10 21 01 11
E-mail: achill(at)netsys.am

NGO.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses

4, Tigran Metsi Avenue
Yerevan 375010

Tel/Fax: +374 10 56 24 00
E-mail: inbox(at)fsmb.am

NGO.

 

Partner Embassies

 

Embassy of Denmark

56, vul. B. Khmelnitskoho, 4th fl.
Kyiv 01901
Ukraine

Tel: +380 44 200 1260
Fax: +380 44 200 1281
E-mail: kievamb(at)um.dk

Embassy.

Embassy of the Netherlands

Sheraton Metechi Palace Hotel
20 Telavi Street
Tbilisi 0103
Georgia

Tel: +995 (8)32 276 200
Fax: +995 (8)32 276 232
E-mail: tbi(at)minbuza.nl

Embassy.

Embassy of Norway

Ulitsa Povarskaya 7
Moscow 131940

Tel: +7 495 933 1410
Fax: +7 495 933 1414
E-mail: emb.moscow(at)mfa.no

Embassy.

Honorary Consulate of Norway

Contact: Timothy D. Straight

Tel: +374 91 40 16 23
E-mail: timothy.straight(at)gmail.com

Consulate.

Honorary Consulate of Sweden

34 Abovyan Street, Suite 7
Yerevan 375009

Tel: +374 10 56 96 98
Fax: +374 10 56 67 35
E-mail: ekhachatourian(at)ilc.am

Consulate.

British Embassy

34 Baghramyan Avenue
Yerevan 375019

Tel: +374 10 26 43 01
Fax: +374 10 26 43 18
E-mail: Enquiries.Yerevan(at)fco.gov.uk

Embassy.

Embassy of Austria

c/o BMeiA, Minoritenplatz 8
A-1014 Vienna

Tel: +43 5 01150 3501/3245
Fax: +43 5 01159 323
E-mail: suedkaukasien(at)bmeia.gv.at

Embassy.

Country Profile Sources

General Information Sources

Corruption Levels Sources

Judicial System

Police

Licences, Infrastructure and Public Utilities

Land Administration

Tax Administration

Customs Administration

Public Procurement and Contracting

Environment, Natural Resources and Extractive Industry

Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives Sources

Private Anti-Corruption Initiatives Sources