EurasiaNet, NY
Oct 26 2006

ARMENIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL COURT TAKES ON NEW POLITICAL WEIGHT
Haroutiun Khachatrian 10/26/06
A EurasiaNet Commentary

As the date for Armenia’s parliamentary elections draws closer,
recent amendments that diversify access to the Constitutional Court,
the country’s highest judicial body, have expanded the opportunities
for the opposition and ordinary citizens alike to take aim at the
government.

Under amendments approved in a November 2005 referendum, the
ombudsman, local governments, judges and prosecutors, and ordinary
citizens who have exhausted all other avenues for appeal may now
bring cases before the Court. Access was previously restricted to the
president, the government and one-third of the Assembly’s deputies.
(The amendments reduced that limit to one-fifth.)

The result has been a much busier court. Between 1997 and 2005, the
Court heard only a handful of cases that challenged the
constitutionality of laws. By contrast, since last year’s referendum,
private citizens have submitted more than 130 cases for the high
court’s review. To date, the court has accepted 10 for consideration,
according to Arman Dilanian, head of the court’s department of legal
advisors in charge of handling such cases.

September 13 marked a turning point in the country’s judicial system
when the Constitutional Court heard its first case brought by private
citizens. Two elderly women challenged the government’s refusal to
pay pensions and salaries to citizens without the use of identity
cards equipped with unique personal identification (PIN) numbers.
Since the start of the identity card program in 2002 (named "Social
cards"), many people expressed opposition to the need to enter PIN
numbers in order to gain access to funds. The court found for the
plaintiffs, thereby requiring the State Social Protection Fund to pay
1,317 retirees who were earlier denied their pensions.

The cases brought before the court have also given Armenia’s largely
fragmented opposition a welcome avenue for the criticism of the
government. The next parliamentary election is scheduled to take
place in May 2007.

One such instance occurred in September when the government
introduced to parliament a draft law on construction right-of-way
claims. The proposed bill was the result of the court’s first
decision under the amended Constitution, on April 18, which found
that regulations used to evict property owners from their homes in
downtown Yerevan to make way for new construction projects were
unconstitutional. The topic is a sensitive one; opposition members,
among others, argue that many of the projects are linked to members
of President Robert Kocharian’s inner circle. Parliament in late
October is grappling with a second draft law proposed by the
government on the issue after the earlier bill failed.

Further opportunities for wrangles with the government lie ahead.
Another case, also brought by Armenia’s ombudsman, Armen
Haroutiunian, challenges a provision in the law on political parties
that provides for the dissolution of parties which do not receive a
certain minimum of votes in a general election. No hearing date has
yet been scheduled for the case.

A third, brought by Artak Zeilnalian, one of the leaders of the
opposition party Hanrapetutiun (Republic), challenges a Civil Code
provision that blocks lawsuits against the authorities for violation
of certain rights.

The public reaction to these events, however, has been unusually
muted, despite the apparent improvement in the ability of ordinary
Armenians to defend their civil rights. Some analysts refuse to
comment, deeming the process "unimportant."

The motivation for the silence from some corners is clear. The
government has lost most of the recent cases brought before the
court. The opposition, for its part, is unwilling to recognize any
positive aspect of the "illegal referendum," which it charges was
rigged. [For details, see the Eurasia Insight archive.]

In the past, public interest in the court’s activities has increased
only during parliamentary and presidential elections. The court has
the final say on disputed vote results, and, in the past,
occasionally proved a significant political factor in the outcome of
elections. After Armenia’s presidential elections in 2003, for
instance, the court called for a national vote of confidence to be
held, even while refusing to invalidate the election results. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive].