With the support of HCA Vanadzor, A.P. filed a lawsuit with the RA Administrative Court, claiming to recognize invalid the administrative act of the RA Police. The claim was upheld.
After the emergency state declared on 4 April 2020, A.P. left her house with the relevant movement sheet, and because she filled it in for the first time, she approached RA Police Lori Regional Department Taron Division inspectors to find out whether the movement sheet was filled in in the prescribed manner. According to the policemen, only the date was missing, however, they made some notes. A.P. asked whether they were going to hold her responsible, and the policemen answered that they were not, and the notes were only made to present to the head of the division and inform that a citizen applied to them and they helped her. However, later it turned out that A.P., relying on false information, signed an illegal protocol of an administrative act made by the policemen.
Thus, an AMD 100.000 fine was imposed on A.P., which was reduced to AMD 10.000 as a result of Addenda and Amendments to the RA Law On RA Administrative Offences. Finding all this ungrounded and illegal, A.P. applied to the RA Administrative Court.
It is noteworthy that A.P. was held administratively liable, while the RA Commandant violated certain norms of the RA Constitution in the conditions of the emergency state by making decisions on restricting the right to freedom of movement, given that only the legislative body, i.e., the National Assembly has that right; whereas the National Assembly did not adopt any law or legislative regulation on that issue.
Besides, as per Article 63 part 1 clause “a” of the RA Law on Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Proceedings, “Invalid shall be the unlawful non-void administrative act, which was adopted: (a) in violation of the law, including as a result of incorrect application or incorrect interpretation of the law”. Thus, on 8 April 2021, taking into account that administration was not carried out properly, the RA Administrative Court upheld A.P.’s claim.
Thus, improper administration leads to violation, incorrect application or interpretation of a law, which contradicts constitutional norms and often entails imposition of ungrounded administrative liability, including large fines.