Freedom of Information Center of Armenia.

FOICA applied to court on June 26, 2009, claiming to obliged the “Rule of Law Party” to provide the requested information within 5 days.
FOICA sent a request asking to provide:
1. The copy of financial report 2008, which should cover information defined by RA “Law on parties” resolution 28, part 3.
2. Information about those charitable sources which donation valued more than the centuple of minimal salary, defined by the law.

FOICA sent a request to party’s President Arthur Baghdasaryan on 21 April, 2009, the answer was received partially violating deadlines. RA Center and Norq Marash districts court of    general jurisdiction discussed the FOICA’s claim against the “Rule of Law Party” chaired by Judge G. Karakhanyan on 4, September, 2009. During the court session the judge demanded the copy of the “Rule of Law” Party’s financial report from the state register, hence the session was postponed.

The next and final session was scheduled on 22 October, 2009. The court decision was published during the session, which rejected FOICA’s claim against the “Rule of Law Party”.

The court defined that if the Center found the provided information impartial it was supposed to submit another written application to the party, and if the party didn’t provide verified information free of charge only in this case the law on Freedom of Information could be considered violated. Regarding the charities, if the report blank doesn’t provide such kind of information, it means they weren’t granted any charity, as according to the decree of Justice Minister dated 31.03.1005 the charities exceeding centuple of minimal salary should be registered.

To conclude, FOICA should be aware of Justice Minister’s decree, should analyse the report and answer to the second point of its request. But the report covered only 2008 while FOICA requested general information without mentioning any date. The court defined that the second question was a logical continuation of the first one, yet it’s not so, as the second question was a separate one having no dependence to the first.

The court decision defined that FOICA received complete and comprehensive information. However, the court decision said nothing about the delay of answer received from the party.