0 8000 12 11

On October 18, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by judge K. Zarikyan, examined the claim submitted by the RA Police against Susanna Simonyan, an ‘Armenian Women’s Front’ member; the claim required that S. Simonyan was brought to administrative responsibility under Article 172.3 (Insulting a police officer or a serviceman) of the RA Code on Administrative Offences.

The court hearing was attended by the representative of the RA Police Ruben Yepiskoposyan, Senior Legal Adviser at Kanaker-Zeytun Division of RA Police Yerevan Department, defendant Susanna Simonyan and her representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor.

At the hearing, after making sure that there were no motions, the Court passed to the examination of the motion filed previously by the defendant. S. Simonyan’s representative T. Siradeghyan noted that Article 172.3 of the RA Code of Administrative Offences did not define the explanation of the concept of insult and the relevant provisions of the RA Civil Code might not be applied to administrative relations. T. Siradeghyan referred to the legal positions expressed in the rulings of the RA Court of Cassation and the RA Constitutional Court, as well as Article 79 of the RA Constitution, according to which, “In case of restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms, the grounds and the scope of such restrictions shall be stipulated by law; the latter shall be sufficiently certain for the holders of fundamental rights and the addressees to be able to engage in appropriate conduct”.

Noting that Article 172.3 of the RA Code of Administrative Offenses contradicted Article 79 of the RA Constitution, T. Siradeghyan motioned to suspend the proceedings and apply to the RA Constitutional Court under the procedure established in Article 101(7) of the RA Constitution and Article 71 of the RA Law on Constitutional Court to determine the compliance of Article 172.3 of the RA Code of Administrative Offenses with Article 79 of the RA Constitution.

The Court asked the defendant’s representative some questions about the motion; in particular, the Court tried to find out whether the party considered that the matter was a gap in the law or an unconstitutional article. In response to the question, T. Siradeghyan noted that Article 172.3 of the RA Code of Administrative Offences made it impossible to understand which word or action might be viewed as an insult and given that, S. Simonyan was unable to adapt her behavior to the requirements of the said Article. Also, the provisions of the RA Civil Code would be applicable only if the RA Code of Administrative Offences contained a relevant provision.

In terms of Article 1(6) of the RA Civil Code invoked in the motion, T. Siradeghyan noted that the RA Civil Code regulated civil and legal relations, and the person to whom insult was addressed might apply to a general jurisdiction court for compensation for the damage caused to him/her. At the same time, in response to the court’s question, the defendant’s representative noted that insulting a police officer differed from insulting a civilian to the extent of the administrative liability that arose from the RA Code of Administrative Offences.

The representative of the RA Police objected to the motion and in response to the Court’s question said that it was definitely clear what was meant by insult and it was the same as provided for under the RA Civil Code.

Having examined the motion, the Court first stated that suspending the proceedings and applying to the Constitutional Court was the court’s power applied by the court when it had a position on the unconstitutionality of the applicable legal provision, and in this case it was the position of a party; therefore, at the moment the Court saw no grounds for suspending the proceedings and applying to the RA Constitutional Court. Then the Court noted that a relevant decision might be taken if the Court got such a conviction in course of the examination of the case.

Then T. Shiradeghyan referred to the RA Constitutional Court ruling, which declared unconstitutional a provision of the RA Administrative Procedure Code on submitting a counter-claim before trial examination, and also expressed a position that S. Simonyan might submit a counter-claim on declaring the RA Police actions unlawful at the trial examination stage.

The court hearing was postponed for the Court to make within the prescribed period a relevant ruling on acceptability of a counterclaim.

The parties will be notified in writing of the date and time of the next court hearing on this case.