FEATURED

61. FOICA vs. “Civil Contract” Party

On December 4, 2023, the Freedom of Information Center of Armenia (FOICA) initiated legal proceedings by filing a lawsuit to compel the "Civil Contract" party to disclose information.

60. FOICA vs. Yerevan Municipality

The Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Armenia confirmed the fact of violation of the Freedom of Information Center's right to receive information by the Yerevan Municipality.

59. Media Defence vs. Republic of Azerbaijan

Media Defence has today filed a case at the Strasbourg court on behalf of four Armenian citizens following the bombing of the town of Martuni by Azerbaijani forces during the recent armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The applicants - three journalists who were injured and the brother of a journalist fixer who was killed - allege that as a result of this attack their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were violated by Azerbaijan.

FOICA On Facebook

FOICA on Youtube

Freedom of Information Center of Armenia FOICA

50. The Application of FOI to the Constitutional Court against the State Committee of the Real Estate Cadastre

November 10, 2015

On August 19, 2015 Freedom of Information Center in Armenia appealed to the Constitutional Court against the Center of Information Technology of the Staff of State Committee of the Real Estate Cadastre asking the Court to oblige the Center to provide information on the basis of property of the Closed Market in Mashtots avenue and lease of the Closed Market. The information must have been free or defined by the conditions of RA Law on Freedom of Information, that is, if the information contains more than 10 pages, money, paid for it, must not exceed the cost of information provision.

The courts have declined the suit of FOICA on the basis of RA Law 71 on “the State registration of property rights”. As a result, on October 16, 2015 FOICA appealed to the Constitutional Court litigating the constitutionalism Article 71 of RA Law on “the State registration of property rights”.

The Constitutional Court took up the case of November 3, 2015. 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.

The Constitutional Court recognized Article 71 of RA Law and in connection to it Part 2 of Article 32 as contradicting and invalid as far as they do not define a differentiated method when the provision of information is connected with person’s right to information about himself as well as the realization of guarantees defined by FOI Law. This means that the information about the person himself must not be sold to that person, thus restricting person’s right to get information about himself.

This also means that the principles that are fixed in the FOI Law as guarantees of protection of FOI right must not be restricted. The Constitutional Court had defined November 1, 2016 as the expiration date of the above-motioned articles of “State Registration of Rights to Property”, so that the legal regulations of Law and other laws and legal acts interconnected with it correspond to the decision requirements of the Constitutional Court.

As a result, in November 1, 2016 several changes were made in “State Registration of Rights to Property” RA Law , as well as provisions were envisaged, due to which guaranteed the demand of provision of the information which a person requests about himself and the information which have public significance without any fee.