FOICA had applied to the RA National Assembly on November 22, 2012 with a written request to provide the following information:
1. Are the decrees of the Chairman of the RA National Assembly posted on the
official website of the RA NA, www.parliament.am?
2. Please provide the copies of the decrees by the Chairman of the RA NA.
Not having received any answer, FOICA sent a request for information repeatedly to the NA on December 5, 2012, asking once again to provide the requested information. On the same day, 05.12.2012, an email was received from the NA reading that additional work is to be done to be able to provide the requested information and it will be provided in a 30-day period.
On March 4, 2013, more than 3 months after sending the request, the NA provided an incomplete answer: 12 copies of the decrees by the Chairman of the RA NA were not provided.
On March 7, 2013, the FOICA sent another request to the RA National Assembly asking to provide the missing 12 copies of the decrees. But NA has refused to provide them, claiming that the decrees contain the NA employee’s personal data.
Thus, on April 8, 2013 FOICA filed a suit at the RA Administrative Court against the RA National Assembly, appealing the refusal of the RA NA regarding to the FOICA’s request to receive information. FOICA has asked the Court to recognize the fact of violation of the right of FOICA to receive information and oblige the RA National Assembly to provide the requested information.
The first court hearing took place on July 3, 2013. The Court appointed another preliminary hearing, during which the National Assembly representative must submit to the Court the copies of the decrees the employees’ names covered, so that the Court can determine whether the decrees actually contain personal data or not. The next court hearing took place on August 7. The court case went to the trial phase. Three court hearings took place in December, 2013, and on December 28, 2013, the RA Administrative Court satisfied the FOICA’s claim. The Court recognized the fact of violation of the Freedom of Information Center’s rigth to Access to Information, obliged the RA NA to provide the rejected information, as well obliged to compensate 50.000 AMD as the FOICA’s court costs.
