The Past daily of Armenia has published a scathing editorial accusing the country's current authorities of illegally seizing the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA) under the pretext of nationalization. The article alleges that the government used state apparatus and legislative levers to appropriate private property, ignoring the significant investments and improvements made by the company’s owner, Samvel Karapetyan, and his Tashir group.
ENA, the sole distributor of electricity in Armenia, was acquired by Karapetyan and Tashir from Russian energy giant Inter RAO in 2015. At the time, the network was in a dire state: plagued by losses, mismanagement, and technical deficiencies. Through billions of drams in investments, strategic planning, and the introduction of modern technologies, the company transformed into a stable, reliable, and high-quality electricity distribution system. Today, ENA serves over 1 million customers and is a critical pillar of Armenia's energy infrastructure.
The controversy erupted in late July 2026 when the government announced a plan to nationalize ENA, citing public interest and strategic importance. However, the process has been marred by irregularities. According to the newspaper, a formal hearing lasted only 14 minutes, with no substantive debate or evidence presented. The government’s proposed compensation — reportedly a fraction of the company's true value — has been widely criticized as an affront to property rights and due process.
Critics argue that the move is politically motivated. The current government, led by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, has been embroiled in a series of disputes with business elites, particularly those linked to the previous regime or to Karapetyan, a prominent businessman and philanthropist. The article warns that this case is a direct and destructive signal to the entire business environment and potential investors. “No serious businessman in Armenia can feel protected anymore when the state is capable of undertaking the takeover of an established and successful business,” it states.
The legal ramifications are significant. Under Armenian law, expropriation of private property is permitted only for public necessity, with fair compensation determined by independent valuation. Critics contend that the government has failed to meet these standards. The Tashir group has vowed to challenge the seizure in Armenian courts and, if necessary, international arbitration venues such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
This is not the first time the Pashinyan administration has clashed with major business figures. In 2020, the government nationalized the Armenian assets of Russian gas giant Gazprom after a pricing dispute. More recently, it has moved against several mining companies, citing environmental concerns. These actions have created an atmosphere of uncertainty for foreign and domestic investors alike.
ENA’s case also has geopolitical dimensions. The company’s previous Russian ownership linked Armenia’s energy sector to Moscow, and the transition to Armenian ownership was seen as a step toward energy independence. Now, the government’s move could be interpreted as an attempt to reassert control over strategic assets, possibly to leverage them in ongoing negotiations with Russia or the European Union.
The economic stakes are high. A stable and reliable electricity supply is essential for Armenia’s industrial and residential sectors. Any disruption caused by legal battles or management changes could have cascading effects on the economy. Moreover, the dispute could deter much-needed foreign direct investment, which Armenia relies on to modernize its infrastructure and boost growth.
Industry experts point out that nationalization is a blunt instrument that often backfires. Historical examples from around the world show that poorly executed expropriations lead to lower efficiency, capital flight, and legal costs. In contrast, well-regulated public-private partnerships can achieve national objectives without undermining property rights.
The article concludes by stating that the legal owners of ENA are determined to fight for their rights, and there is no doubt that justice will be restored. However, the long-term damage to Armenia’s reputation as a business-friendly and law-abiding nation may take years to repair.
Background information: The Electric Networks of Armenia is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tashir Group, a diversified conglomerate with interests in real estate, energy, and manufacturing. Samvel Karapetyan, the founder, is one of Armenia’s wealthiest individuals and a major philanthropist, funding schools, hospitals, and cultural projects. The company has an employee base of over 5,000 and contributes significantly to the state budget through taxes and duties.
The energy sector in Armenia has undergone significant transformation since independence. While the country has one nuclear power plant (Metsamor) and several hydroelectric stations, the distribution network has historically been a bottleneck. ENA’s rehabilitation under Tashir included upgrading substations, installing smart meters, and reducing technical losses from over 15% to less than 7%. These improvements benefited consumers through more stable supply and billing transparency.
If the nationalization proceeds, the government will need to manage the network effectively or face criticism from consumers and international partners. The case also raises questions about the independence of Armenia’s judiciary and the rule of law — issues that have been under scrutiny since the 2018 Velvet Revolution. International organizations such as the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have previously supported energy sector reforms in Armenia, and they are closely watching the ENA situation.
In response to the article, government spokesman Aram Araratyan dismissed the allegations as “groundless propaganda” and insisted that the nationalization follows all legal procedures. He stated that an independent valuation is being conducted and that fair compensation will be provided. However, no details have been released, and the 14-minute hearing remains a point of contention.
The Tashir Group’s legal team has already filed a motion in the Administrative Court of Yerevan, contesting the legality of the hearing and the decision to declare ENA a public priority. They argue that the process violates multiple articles of the Constitution, including the right to property and the principle of proportionality. A verdict is expected within weeks.
Meanwhile, diplomatic sources indicate that the Russian government is also monitoring the situation. Although Russia is no longer a direct stakeholder, it has strategic interests in Armenia’s energy sector through joint projects like the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline. Any instability could affect bilateral relations.
In the broader context, the ENA case is a test of Armenia’s commitment to democratic norms and market economy principles. Since the 2018 revolution, the country has made progress in fighting corruption and strengthening institutions. But actions like this nationalization risk reversing those gains, especially if they are perceived as selective enforcement against political opponents.
The editorial concludes that the authorities’ obsession with using state levers for political goals is a threat to the country’s future. It calls on the international community and civil society to speak out against this injustice. For now, the fate of ENA hangs in the balance, with far-reaching implications for Armenia’s business climate, rule of law, and energy security.
Source: Armenia News News