“А1+” Suit at the Constitutional Court


On February 23 the RA Constitutional Court will hear the "A1+" suit to recognize Part 1 of Article 204/28 of Civil Procedure Code non-constitutional. The thing is that it does not allow citizens of RA to make use of the right of judicial protection and implement decisions of the European Court.

Basing on this very principle the Court of Appeal has recently refused to carry on the decision made by the European Court in June 2008 in favour of the TV-company.

"The revision of "A1+" decisions made in national instances has a formal character," Ara Ghazaryan, representing interests of the TV-company at European Court, said.

"This is not only the issue of "A1+". This will be a strategic decision that will solve the problem of implementing decisions of the European Court in RA. This decision of Constitutional Court may become precedential," Artak Zeynalyan, another representative of "A1+" said. 

At the previous court session defendant Ashot Khachatryan, head of Legal Department of National Assembly, said that the Constitutional Court has once already recognized this article non-constitutional, i.e. the Court of Appeal rejected the TV-company suit basing a non-existent norm.     

At the previous court session Chairman of the Constitutional Court Gagik Harutyunyan gave time to the representative of National Assembly to explain by February 23 why the NA included the norm, recognized non-constitutional, in the law. 

Irrespective of the Constitutional Court decision, Ara Ghazaryan reminded that implementation of the European Court decisions is supervised by the Council of Ministers of the European Council.

"The delay in the implementation of the decision may give cause to political pressure on the country not complying with the decision. When the Committee of Ministers is convinced that the country evades implementing the decision of the European Court, it makes an interim resolution showing how its decision should be implemented."   

"A1+" reminds on its site that since 2002 none of the TV-company's suits has been sustained at national courts.