Trial examination under HCAV v. V. Sargsyan, Head of Staff of RA President’s Office completed
12:34, March 31, 2016 | News, Own news | Freedom of Information and Speech
On March 30, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by A. Avagyan, started trial examination under HCAV v. V. Sargsyan, Head of Staff of RA President’s Office.
Note that by this claim, HCA Vanadzor requested the Court to oblige V. Sargsyan, Head of Staff of RA President’s Office, to provide the complete information required by 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 court hearing was attended by plaintiff’s representative Ani Chatinyan, HCA Vanadzor lawyer, who did not object to holding the examination of the case in the absence of the defendant.
The Court ruled to carry on the hearing in the absence of the defendant who had been properly notified of it.
A. Chatinyan insisted on the claim and made an opening address. HCA Vanadzor representative noted that the failure of the defendant to provide the information requested constituted a violation of the Organization’s right to receive information guaranteed by the RA Constitution, the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the RA Law on Freedom of Information.
At the same time, given that the provision of the requested information had been denied on the grounds of containing privacy information, A. Chatinyan also submitted arguments to the effect that the provision of the requested information could by no means violate the right to privacy of the persons awarded weapons since the Organization required to provide only the names and surnames of such persons; the disclosure of such information is not prohibited by RA Law on Protection of Personal Data. Furthermore, A. Chatinyan mentioned that the media publications on awards with weapons, submitted to the Court confirmed that the disclosure of such data did not by any means violate the right to privacy of the persons in question. At the same time, A. Chatinyan noted that by not providing the quantitative data of the persons awarded weapons in 1992-1998, the defendant failed to provide any reasons for the incomplete provision of the information. Hence, A. Chatinyan requested the Court to grant the claim submitted by the Organization.
The Court passed to the disclosure of the evidence under the case after which the stage of verbal arguments started. A. Chatinyan insisted on the claim and requested the Court to uphold it.
Considering the trial examination of the case completed, the Court assigned the day for announcing the judgment.
The judgment under this case will be announced on April 20, 2016, at 5:50 pm.