0 8000 12 11

On April 6, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by judge K. Baghdasaryan, held a pre-trial court hearing on HCA Vanadzor v. RA Special Investigation Service, with the requirement to compel the latter to provide the requested information.

The court hearing was attended by Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor and representative of Artur Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor.

The representative of the defendant under the case, the RA Special Investigation Service, did not attend the court hearing despite proper notification of its date and time. T. Siradeghyan found that the court hearing might be resumed in the absence of the defendant, as the relevant party had been duly notified of the date and time of the pre-trial court hearing.

Presiding judge K. Baghdasaryan ruled to resume the pre-trial hearing in the absence of the representative of the defendant, the RA Special Investigation Service.

T. Siradeghyan, representative of HCA Vanadzor, presented the subject matter and the grounds of the claim. In particular, T. Siradeghyan mentioned that by its claim submitted to the Court, the Organization requested it to compel the RA Special Investigation Service to provide the information requested in the Organization’s inquiry. The plaintiff’s representative mentioned that HCA Vanadzor requested information on the criminal cases investigated by the RA Special Investigation Service under Article 119, Article 309(2) and (3) and Article 341 of the RA Criminal Code. However, by his response letter, A. Mnatsakanyan, Head of the General Division of Staff of the RA Special Investigation Service, stated that the RA Special Investigation Service provided reports of exclusively informational nature to the RA General Prosecutor’s Office and current information to the RA Police Information Center, and therefore, suggested obtaining requested information from its holder. T. Siradeghyan referred to the relevant provisions of the legal acts to be applied by noting that the defendant’s actions led to violation of the Organization’s right to freedom of information. Meanwhile, T. Siradeghyan noted that in terms of the objections in the defendant’s response to the claim, provisions of Articles 4, 9 and 12 of the RA Law on Freedom of Information were also to be applied.

The presiding judge mentioned that in their response to the claim, the defendant party provided grounds to the effect that the law laid down on them no duty to perform any analysis and asked the plaintiff’s representative what kind of information was requested from the defendant, quantitative or analytical.

In her answer to the question, the plaintiff’s representative noted that the Organization had requested to provide quantitative information on the progress of specific criminal cases under investigation, relevant decisions and appeals.

The Court also decided on the issue of burden of proof and considering the case to be ready for trial examination, scheduled the date and time for such examination.

The trial examination on this case will be held on May 24, 2016, at 11:30 am.

See also: hcav.am