Tweet
Panorama.am
17:15 13/01/2007
DEPUTY JUSTICE MINISTER COMMENTS ON MKRTCHYAN VS. ARMENIA CASE
On January 11 the European Court made a ruling on Armenia. `Lazarian
vs. Armenia' case ended in favor of applicant Armen Lazarian. 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 Lazarian was subjected to administrative
punishment for the participation in a demonstration. The court fined
Lazarian in the amount of 500 drams and Lazarian 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. `Lazarian 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.
Source: Panorama.am
17:15 13/01/2007
DEPUTY JUSTICE MINISTER COMMENTS ON MKRTCHYAN VS. ARMENIA CASE
On January 11 the European Court made a ruling on Armenia. `Lazarian
vs. Armenia' case ended in favor of applicant Armen Lazarian. 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 Lazarian was subjected to administrative
punishment for the participation in a demonstration. The court fined
Lazarian in the amount of 500 drams and Lazarian 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. `Lazarian 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.
Source: Panorama.am