ARM-2011-1-001

a) Armenia / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 25.02.2011 / e) DCC-943 / f) On the conformity with the Constitution of Article 426.3, part 1, point 4, Article 426.4, part 1, point 1 of the RA Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 69, part 12 of the RA Law “On Constitutional Court”/ g) to be published in Tegekagir (Official Gazette) / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:

1.1.4.4 Institutions – Constitutional Justice – Constitutional Jurisdiction-Relations with other institutions - Courts

1.5.4.3 Institutions – Decisions – Types-Finding of constitutionality or unconstitutionality

1.6.7 Institutions –Effects- Influence on State organs

2.3.2 Sources –Techniques of review – Concept of constitutionality dependent on a specific interpretation

Keywords of the alphabetical index:

Decisions on constitutionality / legal positions.

Headnotes

The failure to recognize as a new circumstance the decisions of the Constitutional Court, in the operative part of which it is stated that the challenged norm is recognized as constitutional in the frames of the Constitutional Court’s legal positions, does not provide with opportunity of restoration and protection of violated human rights and freedoms.

Summary

On February 25, 2011, the RA Constitutional Court, considering the case regarding conformity of Point 4, Part 1, Article 426.3 and Point 1, Part 1, Article 426.4 of the RA Code of Criminal Procedure and Part 12, Article 69 of the RA Law on “The Constitutional Court” with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia on the basis of the individual complaints, held:

1. Point 4, Part 1, Article 426.3 of the RA Code of Criminal Procedure is in conformity with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia in the framework of the prescribed legal positions of the given Decision.

2. Point 1, Part 1, Article 426.4 of the RA Code of Criminal Procedure, within the accorded contents in law-enforcement practice, pursuant to which, does not provide with the possibility of restoration of human rights violated as a result of implementation of the law (other legal norm) with the interpretation differing from the RA Constitutional Court’s legal positions, by the means of review of the case on the basis of the new circumstances, recognize as contradicting the requirements of Articles 3, 6, 18, 19 and 93 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia.

In the mentioned Decision, the Constitutional Court emphasized that, acknowledging the challenged act in conformity with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court, interpreting the challenged legal norms, reveals their constitutional-legal contents, acknowledging in the operative part of the Decision conformity of the given norms with the Constitution or conformity with the Constitution in the framework of concrete legal positions, pointing out:

- those legal frameworks where the perception and implementation of the norms ensures its constitutionality;

- those legal frameworks where the implementation and interpretation of the given norm beyond their frames shall lead to non-constitutional consequences;

- those constitutional – legal standards, on the basis of which, the competent body of public power shall ensure additional legal regulation of fully-fledged implementation of the given norm.

The Constitutional Court took as a ground the fundamental position, according to which, the meaning of the constitutional justice is guaranteeing the supremacy of the Constitution and its direct action, and non of procedural norms or its inaccurate formulation can hinder the realization of the constitutional function and guaranteeing of the rule of law.

The Constitutional Court has mentioned that proceeding from the current legislative formulations, the judicial practice by not recognizing as a new circumstance the decisions of the Constitutional Court, in the operative part of which it is stated that the norm is recognized as constitutional in the frames of the legal positions, does not provide with opportunity of restoration and protection of the violated human rights and freedoms. Such decisions concern the cases, when a non-constitutional situation occurs not because of lacuna or ambiguity of the norm, but because of implementation of the norm with an interpretation contradicting the Constitution. In such a situation the implementation of the principle of guaranteeing the rule of law, as well as the supremacy of Constitution, is put into the spot.

Languages:

Armenian