Judgment on HCAV v. RA Government to be announced on May 16, 2016
16:26, April 26, 2016 | News, Own news | Freedom of Information and Speech
On April 26, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by judge K. Avetisyan, held a trial examination on HCA Vanadzor v. RA Government on the requirement on compelling to provide relevant information. Note that by this claim, HCA Vanadzor required that the Court compelled the RA Government to provide information on the quantity of the persons awarded weapons by the RA Prime Minister in 1992-2015 and their data by years.
The court hearing was attended by Arayik Zalyan, representative of Artur Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor and lawyer at the Organization, and Narek Simonyan, representative of the RA Government. Before the court hearing, he submitted to the representative of HCA Vanadzor the quantity of the persons awarded weapons in 1992-1998 totaling 25 persons.
At the court hearing, the participants of the trial made opening remarks. Plaintiff’s representative A. Zalyan noted that the Organization had submitted an inquiry to RA Prime Minister H. Abrahamyan requesting him to provide information on the quantity of the persons awarded weapons by the RA Prime Minister in 1992-2015 and the types of the weapons awarded by requesting at the same time to provide the information by years and persons. However, the letter of the RA Government provided incomplete information, i.e. the quantity of the persons awarded weapons in 1998-2015, stated that the Prime Minister’s decisions on awarding weapons were individual legal acts and failed to provide the data to the persons awarded weapons. A. Zalyan invoked the provisions of the RA Constitution, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the RA Law on Freedom of Information noting that it followed from their content that the RA Government was in charge of the information requested. By referring to the mass media publications that contained information about specific persons awarded weapons by the RA Prime Minister, the plaintiff’s representative also presented arguments on the violations of the requirements of the RA Law on Principles of Administration and Administrative Proceedings arguing that the administrative agency was under obligation to take uniform actions in case of the same factual circumstances. In addition, A. Zalyan also cited the relevant provision of the RA Law on Protection of Personal Data, according to which a person’s name and surname are considered public information. Hence, A. Zalyan requested the Court to compel the RA Government to provide the information requested by the Organization, particularly the data of the persons awarded with weapons by years. A. Zalyan also mentioned that he presented no requirement on provision of quantitative data of awarding weapons since such information had been provided to the plaintiff before the court hearing.
N. Simonyan, representative of the RA Government, also made an opening remark. He submitted to the Court the letter of the RA Government providing the quantity of the persons awarded weapons in 1992-1998 and mentioned that the RA Government was not in charge of the other information requested. N. Simonyan added that the RA Police was in charge of the information regarding the types of weapons and expressed a conviction that if the RA Police received a relevant application it would provide the requested information to the plaintiff.
Presiding judge K. Avetisyan found out the opinion of the plaintiff’s representative in this regard. The latter mentioned that the Organization had also submitted a similar inquiry to V. Gasparyan, Chief of the RA Police, but the requested information was not provided.
Continuing his opening speech, N. Simonyan mentioned that the RA Government found that the disclosure of the names of the persons awarded weapons would constitute a violation of their right to privacy, and therefore requested the Court to dismiss the Organization’s claim.
Having heard the opening remarks, the Court passed to the stage of evidence examination.
The parties did not express any wish to give a summary speech, and therefore the Court considered the examination of the case completed and scheduled the day for announcement of the judgment on this case on May 16, 2016, at 1:12 pm.