Tweet
DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT "ABSTRACT LAWSUIT" MEANS
Karine Ionesyan
11:56 29/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/right/view/29452
There are subjects in Armenia which are unable to appeal to the court
for the protection of their rights, while the business sphere could
have other developments based on the provisions of Aarhus Convention.
It is mostly about NGOs which are unable to appeal to court to protect
others' rights because they are protecting others' right. Complaints
against the state bodies also run into closed doors.
The most vulnerable sphere which is full of such examples is the
environmental protection. Gor Movisisyan, attorney of the Environmental
Law Resource Center of Yerevan State University Department of Law,
author of research conducted under the auspices of Aarhus Convention
target group which concerns accessibility of justice in environmental
protection says Teghut and Delphinarium cases are the best examples
of legislative gaps in Armenia.
According to him, the Soviet traditions of administrative procedure
make it impossible to understand what public interest means and what
are effective means for its protection. "Legal interest" is defined
in our Constitution only in terms of the right to property, while
there can be cases when individual interest also requires protection
as an element of general interest. So people need the possibility to
appeal to court, says Gor Movsisyan.
According to him, whenever there is an administrative application
in Armenia, they immediately figure out whether that person has the
right to appeal to the court or not, while in the European countries
each case is treated with an individual approach. So everyone forgets
the main issue and deals with formal issues.
Movsisyan says that the court dismissed the application relating to
the forest of Teghut using the phrase "abstract lawsuit". The Western
experts were unable to understand what this definition means. Later,
the Court of Cassation decided that two of the three NGOs have the
right to appeal to court since according to their charters they are
engaged in environmental protection. Then the administrative court
dismissed their application and the Court of Cassation passed another
verdict contradicting the previous one, says Movisyan dwelling on
the case of Teghut.
According to him, in Europe any individual, organization or group of
people has the right to appeal to the court.
Karine Ionesyan
11:56 29/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/right/view/29452
There are subjects in Armenia which are unable to appeal to the court
for the protection of their rights, while the business sphere could
have other developments based on the provisions of Aarhus Convention.
It is mostly about NGOs which are unable to appeal to court to protect
others' rights because they are protecting others' right. Complaints
against the state bodies also run into closed doors.
The most vulnerable sphere which is full of such examples is the
environmental protection. Gor Movisisyan, attorney of the Environmental
Law Resource Center of Yerevan State University Department of Law,
author of research conducted under the auspices of Aarhus Convention
target group which concerns accessibility of justice in environmental
protection says Teghut and Delphinarium cases are the best examples
of legislative gaps in Armenia.
According to him, the Soviet traditions of administrative procedure
make it impossible to understand what public interest means and what
are effective means for its protection. "Legal interest" is defined
in our Constitution only in terms of the right to property, while
there can be cases when individual interest also requires protection
as an element of general interest. So people need the possibility to
appeal to court, says Gor Movsisyan.
According to him, whenever there is an administrative application
in Armenia, they immediately figure out whether that person has the
right to appeal to the court or not, while in the European countries
each case is treated with an individual approach. So everyone forgets
the main issue and deals with formal issues.
Movsisyan says that the court dismissed the application relating to
the forest of Teghut using the phrase "abstract lawsuit". The Western
experts were unable to understand what this definition means. Later,
the Court of Cassation decided that two of the three NGOs have the
right to appeal to court since according to their charters they are
engaged in environmental protection. Then the administrative court
dismissed their application and the Court of Cassation passed another
verdict contradicting the previous one, says Movisyan dwelling on
the case of Teghut.
According to him, in Europe any individual, organization or group of
people has the right to appeal to the court.