“Social Studies – 8” Case: What Did the Ministry of Education Hide?

The trial in the case concerning the “Social Studies 8” textbook concluded on September 10 at the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Administrative District Court. Yerevan State University lecturer and education expert Serob Khachatryan and lawyer and textbook co-author Arsen Tavadanyan had filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate an annex to an order issued by the Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of Armenia concerning the grant competition.

During the hearing, the parties presented documentary evidence and questioned each other about the submitted evidence.

Why was a second committee established?

The plaintiffs argued that the Ministry had not provided documents substantiating the legality of dissolving the first subject committee established for the textbook competition and replacing it with a second committee.

Textbook co-author Arsen Tavadanyan told the court that, following the decision of the second competition committee for the “Social Studies” subject, they had asked the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports to provide the decision of the first subject committee, but the Ministry had not provided it.

“We are convinced that the first subject committee was not dissolved on a lawful basis, and therefore the decision to establish the second committee was also unlawful,” Tavadanyan said.

Third evaluator: no name, signature or assessment

The plaintiffs also raised another issue concerning the work of the second subject committee. Arsen Tavadanyan said that the three committee members were expected to submit a total of nine assessments for the three textbooks entered in the competition, while the documents submitted by the Ministry contained only six.

The names, signatures and assessments of two of the three evaluators are included in the documents, while the name, signature and assessment of the third evaluator are not identified.

Tavadanyan told the court that he had asked the Ministry to provide information about the identity of the third evaluator and their assessments, but the Ministry had not provided the information. “If we look at the assessments by Narek Hakobyan and Vaghարշak Matikyan, there is some analysis here, but in the case of the third evaluator, there is no justification whatsoever. The textbooks were assessed without any justification. This is a very important circumstance,” Tavadanyan said.

Judge Vahagn Torosyan examined the documents submitted by the Ministry and noted that the documents concerning all three textbooks bore the signatures of two committee members, while the name and signature of the third person were not indicated.

The judge also tried to establish who the third evaluator was and where their assessment results were. However, no information concerning the third evaluator was presented.

The decision of the first committee is missing

The court also separately discussed the activities of the first subject committee.

Plaintiff Arsen Tavadanyan said that they had requested the decision of the first subject committee from the Ministry but had not received it.

The plaintiff also referred to a letter from the Ministry dated March 3, 2026, which, according to him, stated that documents concerning the first committee had not been preserved because the committee’s minutes had been deemed invalid.

The judge read the Ministry’s written response and questioned Eduard Muradyan, Senior Legal Adviser at the Ministry’s Legal Department.

Judge: So, I don’t understand. If the Ministry considers the process invalid, what is it? Is it an administrative procedure? What is it?

Ministry representative: It is an administrative procedure.
Judge: When the administrative procedure is completed, are the documents not kept by you?
Ministry representative: It was declared invalid, so they were not preserved.
Judge: Suppose someone decides to challenge your administrative procedure. You then have no evidence in your possession?
Ministry representative: No evidence was preserved.

What had the first committee decided?

Plaintiff Tavadanyan also argued in court that, according to information available to them, the first subject committee had declared the textbook they authored the winner. According to him, in that case the textbook should have been used in schools.

The judge asked what information this claim was based on and whether there was any evidence to support it. Tavadanyan replied that they had no evidence.

“We asked the Ministry for the evidence, and the Ministry directly said that they do not have that evidence,” the plaintiff testified.

According to the plaintiff, they had also asked the Ministry to provide justification as to what decision the first committee had made, on what grounds it had made that decision, and why the committee was subsequently dissolved. According to Tavadanyan, the Ministry had not presented documentary evidence concerning these questions either.

“It has not only failed to establish that we were in first place, but it has also failed to establish the legality of the second subject committee,” the plaintiff said.

At the same time, according to the documents presented at the hearing, the Ministry approved the textbooks declared winners on the basis of the minutes of the second committee.

Who can challenge the competition results?

The Ministry’s lawyer also raised the issue of the plaintiffs’ legal standing to appear before the court.

He said that publishing houses, rather than individuals, participate in textbook grant competitions, while authors transfer their copyright to the publishing houses. In this case, however, the individuals themselves had brought the lawsuit.

The Ministry representative asked what justified the plaintiffs’ right to file the lawsuit under these circumstances.

The plaintiffs responded that Serob Khachatryan and Arsen Tavadanyan are authors of the “Social Studies” textbook. Tavadanyan said he had submitted copies of the textbook’s cover and title page to the court as documents confirming their status as the textbook’s authors.

The Ministry representative continued to question why the textbook authors should appear as plaintiffs if the publishing house is the contractual party in the competition.

Tavadanyan referred to the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that once the court has allocated the burden of proof, new evidence is not considered during the proceedings.

Judge Vahagn Torosyan declared the trial concluded and announced that the court’s ruling would be published on September 29.

Anush Martirosyan