CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECLARED GOVERNMENT DECISION UNLAWFUL BUT …
Lragir.am
18 April 06
The Constitutional Court of Armenia read the ruling on the government
action of alienation of property of the residents of Buzand Street
and North Avenue at 17 PM April 18. The ruling contained 17 points and
it took Gagik Harutiunyan, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court,
and the present 45 minutes to read it.
The residents of Buzand Street and North Avenue, present at the
hearing, applauded to the decision of the Constitutional Court. The
Constitutional Court recognized the government decision on alienation
of property of the residents of Buzand Street and North Avenue for
the development of Yerevan unconstitutional.
The decision of the Constitutional Court says that under the
Constitution of Armenia property can be alienated only on exclusive
superior public interest. In accordance with the decision of the
Constitutional Court, the property of the residents of Buzand Street
and North Avenue was alienated without sufficient statutory grounds
and a cause and effect relation between the national and community
interest and the necessity for alienation of property.
The Constitutional Court finds that in its famous decision the
government did not show that the alienation was based on exclusive
public interest. The Constitutional Court decided that the decision
of the government and the sections of the Civil and Land Codes of
Armenia the government decision emanated, are not consistent with
the Constitution of Armenia.
In accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court, by
October 1, 2006 the government and the National Assembly must adopt
necessary legislative acts to suspend the decision of the government
on alienation of the property of residents of Buzand Street and North
Avenue. The decision of the Constitutional Court cannot be appealed.
The residents who have lost their property considered this decision
their first victory. But it can also be their last victory, if it
is a victory at all. The point is that the decision is in favor of
the government rather than the residents. In fact, the decision on
recognizing the action of the government unconstitutional has no
retrospective force. In other words, no one will recover the losses
of residents. Of course, the persons who lost their property can sue
their property after October 1, when the decision of the government
is suspended. However, they may not have this opportunity either. The
problem is that the decision of the Constitutional Court is a new
circumstance to the case that enables the residents to sue their
property in the court of law. However, if the inconsistency between the
Civil Code and the Constitution of Armenia is eliminated by October
1, the decision of the Constitutional Court may not be considered a
new circumstance. Therefore, the joy of the residents might be early
and determined by their unawareness of legal procedures. And the
decision of the Constitutional Court may simply solve the question
of constitutionality for future alienation. This is, of course,
favorable for the residents, not for those residents who have lost
their property, however, but for the residents of the streets that
are found on the map of national needs.
Besides, the decision of the Constitutional Court favors the government
rather because it solves a minor problem and helps it to avoid the
snowball effect. Even the government recognized that alienation was
unconstitutional and it could not carry on. Besides, the government
could not change the regime of alienation set up by themselves. A
way out was found, which improved the image of the ombudsman, and
entitled the government to more legal alienation by virtue of the
decision of the Constitutional Court, necessary to sell the apartments
built currently. After all, the buyers will not buy apartments this
intensively, if the lawfulness of construction arouses suspicion.