Most popular articles
.png "DEPUTY JUSTICE MINISTER COMMENTS ON MKRTCHYAN VS. ARMENIA CASE")
On January 11 the European Court made a ruling on Armenia. “Mkrtchyan vs. Armenia” case ended in favor of applicant Armen Mkrtchyan. The court ruled out that, in fact, the European Convention was violated.
The applicant demanded 5000 euro as a fine but the court ruled out that the recognition of the fact of violation is a moral compensation. Armen Mkrtchyan was subjected to administrative punishment for the participation in a demonstration. The court fined Mkrtchyan in the amount of 500 drams and Mkrtchyan applied to the European Court saying article 11 of the European Convention was violated.
Panorama.am interviewed Gevorg Kostanyan, deputy minister of justice who is also the government representative in the European Court, on the case.
-Mr. Kostanyan, did the Republic of Armenia expect such a ruling?
-Yes and no. “Mkrtchyan vs. Armenia” case opened at the European Court in 2003. The ruling is based on one fact: the European Court decided that after the collapse of the Soviet Union the old law on demonstration and marches was not effective in RA. In fact the ruling did not make in major changes since the new law on demonstration and marches was adopted in 2004 in Armenia. We can say that Armenia complied with the decision of the European Court still in 2004. The government predicted such a danger and took necessary measures to avoid similar circumstances.
-What did the ruling give to the applicant?
-The applicant may apply to Review Court in RA after the ruling of the European Court. Last year the Armenian government decided that the ruling of the European court may be reviewed in Review Court. I do not know if the applicant will use this right.
-Mr. Kostanyan, if the main reason for ruling was the absence of law, couldn’t the European Court take a different decision taken the fact that a new law is already existent?
-The Court may decide that democratization processes have taken place in the country. We notified the court that a respective law is in place and similar situations will not be repeated. The European Court welcomed that but again ruled at that at that particular moment a human right was violated.
The applicant demanded 5000 euro as a fine but the court ruled out that the recognition of the fact of violation is a moral compensation. Armen Mkrtchyan was subjected to administrative punishment for the participation in a demonstration. The court fined Mkrtchyan in the amount of 500 drams and Mkrtchyan applied to the European Court saying article 11 of the European Convention was violated.
Panorama.am interviewed Gevorg Kostanyan, deputy minister of justice who is also the government representative in the European Court, on the case.
-Mr. Kostanyan, did the Republic of Armenia expect such a ruling?
-Yes and no. “Mkrtchyan vs. Armenia” case opened at the European Court in 2003. The ruling is based on one fact: the European Court decided that after the collapse of the Soviet Union the old law on demonstration and marches was not effective in RA. In fact the ruling did not make in major changes since the new law on demonstration and marches was adopted in 2004 in Armenia. We can say that Armenia complied with the decision of the European Court still in 2004. The government predicted such a danger and took necessary measures to avoid similar circumstances.
-What did the ruling give to the applicant?
-The applicant may apply to Review Court in RA after the ruling of the European Court. Last year the Armenian government decided that the ruling of the European court may be reviewed in Review Court. I do not know if the applicant will use this right.
-Mr. Kostanyan, if the main reason for ruling was the absence of law, couldn’t the European Court take a different decision taken the fact that a new law is already existent?
-The Court may decide that democratization processes have taken place in the country. We notified the court that a respective law is in place and similar situations will not be repeated. The European Court welcomed that but again ruled at that at that particular moment a human right was violated.
Placeholder
Studio One