The positions expressed in Constitutional Court’s ruling should be taken into account in further legislative reforms: Constitutional Court’s legal assessments on Varuzhan Avetisyan’s application
16:06, October 25, 2016 | News, Own news | Freedom of Assembly and Association
As reported before, on October 11, 2016, upon examining Varuzhan Avetisyan’s application on compliance of Article 205(2) of the RA Administrative Procedure Code to the RA Constitution, the RA Constitutional Court declared the above article constitutional.
Nevertheless, by its ruling resulting from the examination of the application, the RA Constitutional Court made a number of noteworthy observations.
In particular, the Court found that prescribing specific legal regulations within a special procedure different from the general administrative and procedural rules, including under cases on challenging the lawfulness of the decisions or actions of the authorized body on holding an assembly, shall be intended to guarantee the application of the general organizational and procedural principles of exercising the right to judicial protection as prescribed by the RA Constitution and aim to administer quick and effective justice, resolve public legal issues and protect the persons’ rights prescribed by the Constitution and the law.
Also, the Court found that the legislation provided for effective application of the regulations, but the same could not be said about procedural law; the Court drew attention to the fact that the legislator was more demanding on violations of the procedural law by invoking Article 152(2) of the RA Administrative Procedure Code, according to which administrative acts might be reversed based on examination of the case by non-legal court composition.
By invoking a number of international and domestic criteria, including the precedent rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and the RA Constitutional Court, the Court states that “by being deprived of the right to re-examination, the person is also deprived of the opportunity of exercising effectively his/her right to a fair trial and the effective remedy against violation of his/her right to a fair trial”.
The Court believes that the opportunity to appeal a judicial act through violation of the procedural law regulations may ensure enhanced public confidence in the judicial protection of the right to freedom of assembly.
The RA Constitutional Court found that from this perspective, the legal regulation required a new conceptual approach and was subject to solution within further systematic legislative reforms; therefore, the positions expressed in the Constitutional Court’s ruling ”shall be taken into account when stipulating the procedures for potential appeal of the administrative court’s on the merits ruling following the violation of the procedural law regulations.”
Note that on January 29, 2016, by his decision on ‘Founding Parliament’ member Varuzhan Avetisyan’s notification of the assembly and march to be held on February 26, the authorized representative of the Municipality of Yerevan limited the period of the assembly by reducing it and banned putting up tents in the assembly site.
Varuzhan Avetisyan’s representative, Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor, appealed the above ruling before the RA Administrative Court which on February 19, 2016 rejected the claim and in the final part of its judgment noted in accordance with Article 205(2) of the RA Administrative Procedure Code that “this judgment is final, not subject to review and shall take effect upon its announcement.”