0 8000 12 11

On December 15, 2015, the RA Administrative Court, presided by A. Avagyan, commenced examination under the claim of HCA Vanadzor v. V. Sargsyan, Head of Staff of RA President’s Office. By this claim, the Organization requested the Court to compel V. Sargsyan, Head of Staff of RA President’s Office, to provide the complete information required in the Organization’s inquiry dated June 29, 2015 and particularly information on how many persons were awarded weapons by the RA President in 1992-1998 and the data (names and surnames) of the persons awarded weapons by the RA President in 1992-2015.

The pre-trial court hearing was attended by Syuzanna Soghomonyan, representative of HCA Vanadzor. As for the defendant party, despite proper notification of the date and time of the court hearing, it did not ensure the presence of its representative at the hearing.

S. Soghomonyan did not object to holding the court hearing in the absence of the defendant, and the Court ruled to resume the hearing without the Head of Staff of RA President’s Office.

S. Soghomonyan presented the substance and grounds of the claim. She mentioned that in response to HCA Vanadzor inquiry, incomplete information was provided, and at the same time, the response letter stated that the RA Presidential orders were individual legal acts and were not subject to mandatory disclosure since they contained privacy information. The Organization’s representative mentioned that provision of the names and surnames of the persons awarded weapons in 1992-2015 might not violate their right to privacy.

Presiding judge A. Avagyan mentioned that the defendant’s response to the claim also stated that the submission of the names and surnames of the persons awarded weapons would violate their rights to privacy. The Court attempted to find out the plaintiff’s position on the issue above. S. Soghomonyan noted that the Organization found that submission of such information could by no means violate a person’s right to privacy. Moreover, she stated that various mass media made publications on weapon awards by the RA Prime Minister covering as well the names and surnames of the awardees. The representative of the Organization noted that shortly after she would submit to the Court the links to the publications she mentioned.

The Court noted that there was no need to obtain evidence by its own initiative and ruled to hold another pre-trial hearing, so that the plaintiff submitted to the Court the mass media publications and the scope of the legal acts to be applied under the case was determined.

The parties will be further notified of the next pre-trial court hearing.