Armenia's constitutional court takes on new political weight

Haroutiun Khachatrian 10/26/06

A EurasiaNet Commentary

As the date for Armenia's parliamentary elections draws closer, recent amendments that diversify access to the Constitutional Court, the country's highest judicial body, have expanded the opportunities for the opposition and ordinary citizens alike to take aim at the government.

Under amendments approved in a November 2005 referendum, the ombudsman, local governments, judges and prosecutors, and ordinary citizens who have exhausted all other avenues for appeal may now bring cases before the Court. Access was previously restricted to the president, the government and one-third of the Assembly's deputies. (The amendments reduced that limit to one-fifth.)

The result has been a much busier court. Between 1997 and 2005, the Court heard only a handful of cases that challenged the constitutionality of laws. By contrast, since last year's referendum, private citizens have submitted more than 130 cases for the high court's review. To date, the court has accepted 10 for consideration, according to Arman Dilanian, head of the court's department of legal advisors in charge of handling such cases.

September 13 marked a turning point in the country's judicial system when the Constitutional Court heard its first case brought by private citizens. Two elderly women challenged the government's refusal to pay pensions and salaries to citizens without the use of identity cards equipped with unique personal identification (PIN) numbers. Since the start of the identity card program in 2002 (named "Social cards"), many people expressed opposition to the need to enter PIN numbers in order to gain access to funds. The court found for the plaintiffs, thereby requiring the State Social Protection Fund to pay 1,317 retirees who were earlier denied their pensions.

The cases brought before the court have also given Armenia's largely fragmented opposition a welcome avenue for the criticism of the government. The next parliamentary election is scheduled to take place in May 2007.

One such instance occurred in September when the government introduced to parliament a draft law on construction right-of-way claims. The proposed bill was the result of the court's first decision under the amended Constitution, on April 18, which found that regulations used to evict property owners from their homes in downtown Yerevan to make way for new construction projects were unconstitutional. The topic is a sensitive one; opposition members, among others, argue that many of the projects are linked to members of President Robert Kocharian's inner circle. Parliament in late October is grappling with a second draft law proposed by the government on the issue after the earlier bill failed.

Further opportunities for wrangles with the government lie ahead. Another case, also brought by Armenia's ombudsman, Armen Haroutiunian, challenges a provision in the law on political parties that provides for the dissolution of parties which do not receive a certain minimum of votes in a general election. No hearing date has yet been scheduled for the case.

A third, brought by Artak Zeilnalian, one of the leaders of the opposition party Hanrapetutiun (Republic), challenges a Civil Code provision that blocks lawsuits against the authorities for violation of certain rights.

The public reaction to these events, however, has been unusually muted, despite the apparent improvement in the ability of ordinary Armenians to defend their civil rights. Some analysts refuse to comment, deeming the process "unimportant."

The motivation for the silence from some corners is clear. The government has lost most of the recent cases brought before the court. The opposition, for its part, is unwilling to recognize any positive aspect of the "illegal referendum," which it charges was rigged. [For details, see the Eurasia Insight archive.]

In the past, public interest in the court's activities has increased only during parliamentary and presidential elections. The court has the final say on disputed vote results, and, in the past, occasionally proved a significant political factor in the outcome of elections. After Armenia's presidential elections in 2003, for instance, the court called for a national vote of confidence to be held, even while refusing to invalidate the election results. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Posted October 26, 2006 © Eurasianet