On May 7, 2013, the Freedom of Information Center sent a written information request to the RA State Committee of the Real Estate Cadastre asking to provide the fallowing information.
- When, according to which legal act, in what purpose, how (ownership, lease) and in what period was the Closed Market of Yerevan allocated?
- Please provide the copy (copies) of the contract(s) of allotment of the Closed Market of Yerevan.
On May 18, 2013, the Information Technology Center of the RA State Committee of the Real Estate Cadastre has refused to provide the requested information, stating, that the requested information will be provided after the FOICA pays for it. This refusal was considered unjustified, because the claim of payment was inconsistent with the terms and conditions of payment for information stated by the RA Law on Freedom of Information.
On August 19, 2013, the FOICA filed a suit at the RA Administrative Court against the Information Technology Center of the RA State Committee of the Real Estate Cadastre, asking the Court to oblige the respondent to provide the requested information.
The RA Administrative Court rejected the FOICA’s claim by its decision dated on June 6, 2014. The FOICA appeled the Administrative Court’s decision to the RA Court of Appeal. By its decision dated December 18, 2014, the RA Court of Appeal rejected the FOICA’s appeal leaving in force the RA Administrative Court’s decision.
The FOICA has appealed the decision of the RA Court of Appeal to the RA Court of Cassation, which rejected to adopt the appeal. As a result, the FOICA appealed to the RA Constitutional Court.
On February 23, 2016 the Constitutional Court publicized the verdict, according to which RA Constitution recognized Article 71 of RA Law on “the State registration of property rights” as contradicting and invalid.
As a result, the FOICA again appealed to the RA Court of Cassation, asking to reconsider its previous decision. The RA Court of Cassation satisfied the FOICA’s appeal and decided, that the case must be reexamined. As a result the case was sent to the RA Administrative Court for the new examination.
This court case is still in process.
