The Judicial and Legal Reform Strategy envisages increasing the efficiency of both administrative justice and administrative proceedings. The strategy envisages the establishment of the Administrative Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the expansion of the scope of administrative bodies and disputing their actions, the increase of the efficiency of appealing administrative acts, etc.

Iravaban.net spoke on the topic with advocate Ani Hakobyan.

– The Judicial and Legal Reform Strategy 2019-2023 envisages the abolition of the administrative procedural order for challenging the decisions, actions and inaction of the administration penitentiary institution. Won’t this change contribute to the increase of violations allowed by the administration? What do you think about this?

– I should mention that the possibility of appealing is regulated by the current legislation, in particular, the Constitution, as well as there are a number of decisions of the Constitutional Court, which refer to the procedure of appealing the violations committed by penitentiaries and it cannot be limited in any way.

– The administrative court is one of the most overburdened. Will the application of written and simplified procedures in administrative proceedings have a significant impact on the prompt resolution of cases and the reduction of the burden on judges?

– The workload of the administrative court is conditioned, first of all, by the lack of sufficient knowledge of the legal consciousness of the administrative bodies, on the basis of which many unfounded administrative acts are made. This issue will be resolved first of all after competent administration by the administrative bodies. The cause-and-effect connection underlying the workload of the RA Administrative Court should be the subject of attention.

As for the written procedure, the workload of the administrative court will definitely be relieved to some extent. For about a year now, the administrative court has been conducting written examinations in a number of administrative cases.

I think that the application of the simplified procedure will also have a positive effect on relieving the burden, as there are many administrative cases where neither the plaintiffs nor the representatives of the administrative body are present at the hearings, only lawsuits and answers to lawsuits are submitted and at least it is illogical for a judge to hold a solitary hearing orally.

– On 9 February, the National Assembly adopted in the second reading and in full the amendments envisaged by the Judicial Code, by which a new chamber was created in the court of third instance. What impact will the establishment of an Administrative Chamber in the Court of Cassation have on administrative justice?

– I think this change is probably one of the expected changes, as most of the judges of the Court of Cassation who hear cassation appeals in administrative cases, are judges of civil orientation, which in itself may not ensure the administration of effective justice in a narrow professional capacity. The establishment of the Administrative Chamber will have a positive impact on administrative justice due to the effectiveness of judicial protection.

– The New Code on Administrative Violations was not adopted, although it is considered a solution to the issue. The current Code was adopted in 1985. What problems does this cause in practice? In your opinion, why is the process of having a new code taking so long?

– I think that the reason for correcting the many existing shortcomings of the current Code on Administrative Offenses is the process of adoption of the mentioned Code and, naturally, they practically make it impossible to solve a number of legal issues. The existing problems in the legislative field of the Republic of Armenia are mainly the existing contradictions in different laws, for the correction of which extensive work must be done by specialists with relevant knowledge.

– One of the directions of this goal fixed by the strategy is to increase the efficiency of appealing administrative acts. It is mentioned that, for example, it will be possible to limit the possibility of appealing the decisions of the RA Administrative Court in those cases, by which the amount of the penalty applied by the disputed administrative acts does not exceed twice the minimum salary.

Do you see a problem here? Or do you have another way to solve the problem, which will increase the efficiency of appealing administrative acts?

– As I have already mentioned, the working style of the administrative bodies in the Republic of Armenia is at a very low level, and mainly the workload of the RA Administrative Court is the basis of improper administration by the administrative body. The only positive progress that can be expected in this case, can be conditioned only by the exact observance of the functions of the administrative bodies envisaged by the RA legislation.

However, I consider it necessary to mention that the right to judicial protection should not be restricted, as one of the primary criteria for having the rule of law is the possibility of judicial protection for the restoration of violated rights, regardless of the administrative penalty.

I would also like to refer to the amount envisaged by the recent change of the state duty on Traffic Police and “red lines” acts, which, in fact, the RA Administrative Court was relieved of, but it obviously affected the possibility of effective judicial protection, as, for example the person who has been subjected to administrative liability in the amount of 5000 drams will consider it pointless to pay the state duty in the amount of 4000 drams. In this regard, the administrative bodies use the opportunity, as they do not bear any responsibility by carrying out improper administration, and thus the right to justice, as well as the effective protection of the judiciary is violated, and the legal awareness of the administrative bodies decreases year by year.

I think another legislative change should be considered and discussed, according to which, if the administrative penalty is declared invalid by a court, the official authorized to impose an administrative penalty will be responsible for the expenses incurred. In this case, at least it will be possible to see a positive result, as now no official of the administrative body is responsible for the unfounded decision made by him, and in such conditions there can be no question of proper administration.