Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor

On April 17, 2019, the RA Appeal Court changed the judgment of the Administrative Court and recognized null and void the Traffic Police’s decision dated June 10, 2017 on prohibiting K.B. from taking part in the examinations for getting a driving license.

On July 10, 2017, Head of Vanadzor Records and Examination Division of the RA Traffic Police did not allow K.B. to take part in the examinations for getting a driving license reasoning that the latter was registered in the list of a psychiatric medical institution.  

K.B. was provided with the refusal in a written form. In the refusal, the head referred to Article 29 part 1 point “b” of the RA 2005 law on “Ensuring traffic safety”. The mentioned Article, however, does not prohibit participation in examinations, but rather determines the conditions under which a driving license ceases to be in force in case of a conclusion on having a mental disease.

In this case, K.B. did not have a driving license yet at that point of time, therefore the Article was not applicable. Whereas, participation in the examinations can be prohibited only in case of being registered in narcological medical institutions or being deprived of the right to drive means of transportation.

Besides, the condition of having a psychiatric disorder must be confirmed by a conclusion given by the competent authority, a condition which was not complied with in case of K.B., either.  

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor undertook the protection of K.B.’s rights and litigated the Traffic Police’s decision dated July 10, 2017 in the RA Administrative Court.

In the claim filed with the Court, HCA Vanadzor lawyer Artur Harutyunyan invoked the above-mentioned conditions and claimed to recognize null and void the decision of the Traffic Police and oblige to allow K.B. to take part in the examinations.

On July 23, 2018, the Administrative Court refused the claim. The Court considered the note made in the registry of the Traffic Police as proof of K.B. having a psychiatric disorder and concluded that in case of issuing a driving license, the Police has the authority to withdraw it at that very moment in accordance with Article 29 part 1 point “b” of the RA 2005 law on “Ensuring traffic safety”.

A. Harutyunyan appealed the refusal and pointed out the violations made by the Administrative Court. In particular, the Administrative Court gave an incorrect interpretation to the provision of the law, besides, the Court considered a decent proof the information provided by a non-competent authority, whereas it did not get a conclusion -made in the manner prescribed by law - on K.B. having mental health problems.

The Appeal Court considered substantive the claim made by A. Harutyunyan that the Administrative Court applied groundless restrictions on K.B.’s rights and also considered well-grounded the claim to recognize the note taken from the police registry as an unsubstantiated proof.    

The Appeal Court recorded that besides the fact that there was no conclusion given by a competent authority in a manner prescribed by law on the plaintiff having a psychiatric disorder, the Administrative Court also did not find out in what way and based on what proofs there was information in the respondent’s registry pertaining to the plaintiff’s personal secret of having a psychiatric disorder.

Thus, the Appeal Court concluded that the Traffic Police made the decision dated July 10, 2017 based on an incorrect application of Article 29 part 1 point “b” of the RA law on “Ensuring traffic safety”. The Court decided to recognize null and void the decision and oblige to allow K.B. to take part in the qualification examinations envisaged by the RA   legislation to get a driving license.