The decision of the Road Traffic Police was declared invalid
- 2017-09-20
The claimant’s representative, Hayk Sahakyan, applied to the Administrative Court of the RA on the ground that the administrative body did not abide by the principle of legal certainty. Particularly, the claimant was subject to the administrative penalty for violating the rules of stopping. However, it was not clear from the act which particular rule of stopping was not respected by the claimant.
The Administrative court /by Judge M. Hambardzumyan/ based his ruling in administrative case No. VD/4687/05/16 on the legal position expressed by the decision of the Court of Cassation of the RA in case VD/2127/05/11 of 18 July 2014, which requires for an administrative act to have a mandatory justification; the reasons of its adoption.
More particularly, an administrative act shall state all substantive factual and legal grounds of the case. The requirement for the legislature to contain a justification in the administrative act is not aimless; moreover, it gives opportunity to those who do not agree with the adopted administrative act can lodge an administrative complaint or file a lawsuit to exercise in practice their fundamental right to a fair trial.
The administrative court also stated that the section 9 of Government’s decision N 955-N defines the rules of parking and stopping, however, the contested decision did not indicate which rule or rules had been violated by the claimant. Consequently, the administrative body made the contested decision without sufficient factual and legal justifications, thereby violating the statutory requirement to have a mandatory justification for the act.
On these grounds, the administrative court declared the administrative act of The Road traffic police invalid.