Tweet
NA MUST BE RESPONDENT IN THE CC
Anna Israelian
Aravot.am
31 Aug 06
Chairman of the Constitutional Court Gagik Haroutiunian considers
this version more reasonable.
It is known that the first personal application the CC decided
to examine was Artak Zeinalian's. Why was the examination of that
application appointed in November?
We haven't started any examination in August as the NA was on holiday
and our courts as well. The law provides 9 months for the examination
of that case.
NA chairman Tigran Torosian informed during the latest press
conference that the CC had recognized the NA respondent for 7 cases
about constitutionality of laws and predicted that number of such
packages could be added. Na chairman didn't know whether the NA would
be respondent for all that kind of cases or the government also must
be respondent in the CC. What is your opinion?
First of all they shouldn't worry about the quantity of
applications. We should examine how it is displayed in
other countries. For example in Germany, 2-3% of personal
applications include issues of constitutionality and become point of
examination. Such applications are 3-5% in Czechia and Slovakia, 5-8%
in Russia. 10-11 from 112 applications is about constitutionality
in Armenia, that is 9-10%. First of all we must examine why that
percent is so high. I connect it with the accumulated problems,
first of all: CC didn't have that power before, the citizen wasn't
able to turn and a lot of issues have been accumulated. Only 10%
of our personal applications contents problems of constitutionality,
and NA different commissions have connection with those issues.
And if each commission once in three months is able to be respondent at
the CC, nothing strange will happen. Irrespective of the fact how the
law will be changed, will it remain the same or won't, Constitutional
Court make the final decree in every country for recognizing the
respondent side. The law can't determine, this is the respondent
side. As every case has its specificity and the court must decide
who must answer.
You think the NA must be respondent in the CC but the NA chairman
thinks that problem may be impossible to solve in the framework of
NA committees.
Na thinks there aren't enough powers to provide for applications. The
parliament itself decides who will represent in the CC, and they
can send only three persons. That can be either the chief of the
commission, deputy chief or its member, or a certain advocate. The
problem is to choose the right way. The president of the country and
the parliament in Russia and many other countries have their permanent
representatives in the CC during the examination of all cases as the
examination of each case deal with the public authority. When the
NA tries to find any solution, it must think how to improve further
legislative activities.
Anna Israelian
Aravot.am
31 Aug 06
Chairman of the Constitutional Court Gagik Haroutiunian considers
this version more reasonable.
It is known that the first personal application the CC decided
to examine was Artak Zeinalian's. Why was the examination of that
application appointed in November?
We haven't started any examination in August as the NA was on holiday
and our courts as well. The law provides 9 months for the examination
of that case.
NA chairman Tigran Torosian informed during the latest press
conference that the CC had recognized the NA respondent for 7 cases
about constitutionality of laws and predicted that number of such
packages could be added. Na chairman didn't know whether the NA would
be respondent for all that kind of cases or the government also must
be respondent in the CC. What is your opinion?
First of all they shouldn't worry about the quantity of
applications. We should examine how it is displayed in
other countries. For example in Germany, 2-3% of personal
applications include issues of constitutionality and become point of
examination. Such applications are 3-5% in Czechia and Slovakia, 5-8%
in Russia. 10-11 from 112 applications is about constitutionality
in Armenia, that is 9-10%. First of all we must examine why that
percent is so high. I connect it with the accumulated problems,
first of all: CC didn't have that power before, the citizen wasn't
able to turn and a lot of issues have been accumulated. Only 10%
of our personal applications contents problems of constitutionality,
and NA different commissions have connection with those issues.
And if each commission once in three months is able to be respondent at
the CC, nothing strange will happen. Irrespective of the fact how the
law will be changed, will it remain the same or won't, Constitutional
Court make the final decree in every country for recognizing the
respondent side. The law can't determine, this is the respondent
side. As every case has its specificity and the court must decide
who must answer.
You think the NA must be respondent in the CC but the NA chairman
thinks that problem may be impossible to solve in the framework of
NA committees.
Na thinks there aren't enough powers to provide for applications. The
parliament itself decides who will represent in the CC, and they
can send only three persons. That can be either the chief of the
commission, deputy chief or its member, or a certain advocate. The
problem is to choose the right way. The president of the country and
the parliament in Russia and many other countries have their permanent
representatives in the CC during the examination of all cases as the
examination of each case deal with the public authority. When the
NA tries to find any solution, it must think how to improve further
legislative activities.