0 8000 12 11

On July 6, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by judge A. Harutyunyan, examined the claim of Jean Baptist Ozkirisyan (Shant Voskerchyan) v. the RA National Security Service. Note that by this claim, the plaintiff’s representatives Artur Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor, and Ani Chatinyan, lawyer and advocate at the Organization, demanded to declare unlawful the actions of the RA National Security Service, under which the plaintiff’s data were included in the databank of persona non grata in the RA, as well as to annul the refusal to admit the administrative complaint under the letter of October 2, 2015 and compel the RA National Security Service to remove the plaintiff’s data from the databank of persona non grata in the RA.

At the previous court hearing, T. Ghukasyan, defendant’s representative, submitted to the court a letter from the RA National Security Service to the effect that on April 25, 2016, J. Ozkirisyan’s data were removed from the databank of persona non grata in the RA.

Considering the above, the Court ruled to discontinue the proceedings on that part.

The court hearing was attended by plaintiff’s representatives, Ani Chatinyan, lawyer and advocate at HCA Vanadzor, and advocate Artur Harutyunyan, as well as Tatul Ghukasyan, representative of defendant RA National Security Service.

Prior to the commencement of the trial examination, the Parties submitted not motions, plaintiff’s representative A. Harutyunyan insisted on the claim, and respondent’s representative T. Ghukasyan objected to the claim; then the Parties passed to their opening remarks.

Plaintiff’s representative A. Chatinyan mentioned that on May 21, 2015, in the evening, J. B. Ozkirisyan arrived in RA; however, upon being kept at Zvartnots Airport for 12 hours, in the morning, he was sent back to Paris against his will. The relevant inquiries submitted by HCA Vanadzor to the RA National Security Service made it clear that plaintiff J. Ozkirisyan’s access to the RA was banned due to the fact that his data were included in the databank of persona non grata in the RA and the administrative appeal to remove his data from the databank above was dismissed by the defendant.

The defendant’s representative mentioned that according to Article 8(f) of the RA Law on Foreigners, a foreigner shall be denied entry in the Republic of Armenia if there are well-grounded threats to the effect he/she poses danger to the national security or public order of the Republic of Armenia or any other serious and substantial threats. Then invoking Article 41(1) of the RA Law on Responsive and Intelligence Actions, he stated that the information on the findings of the responsive and intelligence actions constituted a state secret and was not subject to disclosure and requested the Court to dismiss the claim.

In response to plaintiff’s representative A. Harutyunyan’s observation that Article 41 of the RA Law on Responsive and Intelligence Actions concerned the confidentiality of the information related to the agencies engaged in responsive and intelligence activities, whereas no such information was requested, the defendant party’s representative mentioned that the contents of the Article above concerned the protection of the findings of responsive and intelligence activities as well.

A. Harutyunyan also asked a question on the regulations in Article 6 of the RA Law on Responsive and Intelligence Actions, according to which everybody shall be entitled to request from the agencies who took responsive and intelligence actions the findings and documents obtained as a result of such actions. T. Ghukasyan stated that the Article above concerned the cases of rejecting initiation of criminal proceedings or discontinuing criminal proceedings, and in the material case of the plaintiff, no criminal proceedings were initiated.

By noting that the burden of proof rested on the administrative agency, presiding judge A. Harutyunyan asked a clarifying question on whether the information collected on the plaintiff might be submitted to the court. The response to this question was negative. In response to plaintiff’s representative A. Harutyunyan’s question, the defendant’s representative invoked Article 28(5) of the RA Administrative Procedure Code and stated such information might not be provided even if there was a relevant court ruling.

Considering the trial examination to be completed, the Court passed to the stage of judicial disputes.

Only plaintiff’s representative A. Harutyunyan gave a final speech. He stated that the fact of banning the plaintiff’s entry to the RA was substantiated and the burden of proof as to the actions above was borne by the administrative agency, which had not submitted to the court any evidence to support its actions so far. Hence, A. Harutyunyan stated that the claim was well-grounded and was subject to be granted.

The trial examination of the case ended; the judgment will be announced on July 26, 2016, at 5 pm.