CONTROVERSIAL LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE ON PROPERTY ALIENATION FOR PUBLIC AND STATE NEEDS AGAIN DISCUSSED IN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Noyan Tapan
Oct 25 2006
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 25, NOYAN TAPAN. The RA National Assembly on October
25 started discussing in first reading the controversial legislative
package on property alienation for public and state needs, which was
submitted by the government as an urgent one. Its adoption proceeds
from the requirements of the RA Constitutional Court’s decision
of April 18, 2006. The discussion of the package will continue on
October 26. According to the main speaker, the RA Justice Minister
Davit Harutyunian, on the whole the draft has the ideology of the
draft rejected in second reading by the parliament on September
27. The only amendment is related to transitional provisions, with
3 out of their 5 points being removed. The co-speaker, Chairman of
the NA Standing Committee on State and Legal issues Rafik Petrosian
said that the committee gave a positive recommendation on adoption
of the package in first reading – on condition that the government
will discuss and take into consideration the proposals made before
the second reading. In his opinion, delays in the adoption of the
law cause damage both to the state and owners of the property being
alienated and to be alienated. At the same time, R. Petrosian noted
that after the extended parliamentary hearings on this legislative
initiative on October 11, "hundreds of seriuos, literate from the legal
point of view proposals" have been received from the participants
of the hearing, opposition MPs, the RA Ombudsman, and several NGOs
defending the right of property. They are mainly related to 3 problems:
clarification of the formulation of superior interest, prevention of
property alienation for public and state needs to the advantage of an
organization, and reconsidering the order of evaluation of property to
be alienated. R. Petrosian urged the government representative to take
these problems into account. In his words, otherwise the indicated
provisions of the law may be disputed in the Constitutional Court,
whereas he has no intention to appear as a defendant and blush instead
of the government.