By its arbitrary interpretation of the law, the Ethics Commission for High-Ranking Officials rejected the application of HCAV
18:10, September 14, 2016 | News, Own news
Back on April 24, 2016, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor applied to the Ethics Commission for High-Ranking Officials on imposing a disciplinary penalty under Articles 38, 46 and 48 of the RA Law on Public Service for insulting journalist Siranush Papyan.
Note that on April 24, 2016, during his talk with the journalists, as journalist Siranush Papyan reacted to Vladimir Gasparyan’s observation on police reforms saying that the public could see no such reforms, he answered, “And I see no woman in you.”
By its application to the Commission, the Organization stressed that uttering an abusive and degrading expression by Vladimir Gasparyan was not a proper behavior for a public servant acting as a high-ranking official and is considered a gross violation of ethics rules.
By its response letter of June 8, 2016, the Commission states that the application of HCA Vanadzor on violation of the ethics rules cannot be admitted referring to the opinion of May 3, 2013 according to which in cases of violations of ethics rules by officials against a particular person or a group of persons, the Commission may not initiate any legal proceedings until it has received an application on a particular case form a particular person or a group of persons.
Note, however, that according to Article 44(2) of the Law on Public Service, the Ethics Commission may start proceedings on violations of ethics rules:
1) based on application of a person;
2) by its own initiative;
3) based on application of a high-ranking official on checking violation of ethics norms by his/her action.
Thus, under Article 44(2)(2) of the Law, the Commission initiates proceedings not only based on the application of a particular person or group of persons targeted by the violations of the ethics rules by an official, but also based on the application by “any person” no matter whether the violations targeted the applicant directly or not. Therefore, by its opinion, the Commission interpreted the law arbitrarily and rejected the application of HCA Vanadzor.