0 8000 12 11

On March 2, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by judge A. Harutyunyan, held a pre-trial hearing on Jean Baptist Ozkirisyan (Shant Voskerchyan) v. RA National Security Service based on a claim. By this claim, the plaintiff’s representatives Artur Sakunts and Ani Chatinyan demanded to recognize 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.

The pre-trial court hearing was attended by Artur Sakunts and Ani Chatinyan, representatives of the plaintiff, and Tatul Ghukasyan, representative of the defendant, the RA National Security Service.

A. Chatinyan, plaintiff’s representative, introduced the subject and grounds of the claim. She noted that J. Ozkirisyan, Coordinator of Armenian Revival Organization Office in Paris and Founding Parliament member, arrived in RA in the evening on May 21, 2015. However, at Zvartnots Airport, the plaintiff was not allowed to enter RA and after being kept for some 12 hours in a room at the Airport, in the morning he was sent to Paris against his will. The further inquiries submitted by the RA National Security Service revealed that the plaintiff had been denied entry in RA on the ground that his data were found in the databank of persona non grata in RA. The RA National Security Service dismissed the administrative complaint on removing J. Ozkirisyan’s data from the databank above. At the same time, the plaintiff’s representatives mentioned that the persons denying his entry in RA failed to explain the causes and reasons for such denial.

Judge A. Harutyunyan attempted to find out the kinds of claims submitted by plaintiff’s representative to the court. A. Chatinyan noted that the first requirement was filed in form of a recognition requirement. The Court argued that a requirement to recognize an action unlawful called for substantiating that such requirement was exhausted and no longer had any legal effect. A. Chatinyan noted that the action of registering the plaintiff in the databank above was completed since based on such registration the plaintiff was deprived of the possibility to enter RA.

A. Chatinyan also noted that the second requirement under the claim was a challenging claim and its solution depended on the procedure applied to remove a person’s data from the data bank above. She also requested the Court to make it possible for her to specify the requirement after hearing the defendant’s arguments.

T. Ghukasyan, representative of the RA National Security Service, objected to the claim by referring to the legal acts under which the plaintiff had been registered in the databank of persona non grata in the RA considering such actions lawful. In particular, he referred to Article 8(f) of the RA Law on Foreigners, under which a person is denied entry in the RA if he/she poses any threats to the RA national security or public order or any other serious and substantial threats. J. Ozkirisyan was denied entry in RA upon rapid-response and intelligence actions in line with the procedures stipulated by RA Government Decree № 115-N on Procedure to Enter Data into Databank of Persona Non Grata in RA and Using It, dated January 25, 2008. At the same time, T. Ghukasyan mentioned that the findings of the rapid-response and intelligence actions were confidential and not subject to disclosure.

A. Sakunts, plaintiff’s representative asked the defendant’s representative some questions and particularly asked him to clarify the procedure for registration of persons in the databank above, whether a legal act was adopted, or the person was registered with the databank by a particular action. In response, T. Ghukasyan said that based on the data obtained through rapid-response and intelligence measures, an administrative act was adopted, which served as a basis to register a person in the databank of persons non grata in RA. A. Sakunts also requested the defendant’s representative to specify the terms for which a person was registered in such a databank and whether the person in question was informed of it. The defendant’s representative said he was unaware whether the person registered in the databank was informed of it, but in the case under consideration, it appeared impossible to inform the plaintiff of his registration in the databank since he was away from RA. He also said that the entry ban was imposed on the plaintiff for an indefinite period till the circumstances underlying his registration in the databank were removed.

Plaintiff’s representative A. Chatinyan requested the Court to adjourn the pre-trial hearing, so that she could consult with the plaintiff on possible changes in the claims since the first claim aimed to obtain compensation for the damages caused.

The defendant’s representative did not object to adjourning the court hearing.

The Court found it necessary to specify the claims above, upheld the motion and ruled to adjourn the court hearing by scheduling another pre-trial hearing on April 27, 2016.

The findings of the pre-trial court hearing suggest that J. B. Ozkirisyan’s data collected and used by the RA National Security Service are considered confidential for him and actually, a person has no right to know the reason why he/she is considered dangerous for the security of the RA and what steps he/she can take to get a possibility to visit his “homeland”.