Mayor of Vanadzor: The decision of the Constitutional Court does not  provide for the dissolution of the Vanadzor Council of Elders

ArmInfo.Today's decision of the Constitutional Court of Armenia does not provide for the dissolution of the Vanadzor Council of Elders. This was stated in the conversation with the correspondent of ArmInfo by the mayor of Vanadzor, Mamikon Aslanyan.

According to him, the Constitutional Court rejected precisely that  part of the claim of the opposition blocs "Elk" and "Tsarukyan",  which concerned the dissolution of the Council of Elders.  "Representatives of these forces, among others, challenged the  constitutionality of Article 69 of the law on local self-government,  and if the Constitutional Court granted their claim on this part,  then indeed, the meetings of the Vanadzor Council of Elders could be  considered unconstitutional, but the Constitutional Court considered  the relevant Basic Law of the country the 69th article of the law on  local self-government, therefore, confirmed the constitutionality of  the meetings of the Council of Elders of Vanadzor," Aslanyan  explained.

He noted that the Constitutional Court recognized as  anticonstitutional only the 30th article of the law on local  self-government and those decisions of the Vanadzor Council of  Elders, which proceed from this provision. "The CC gave the time for  the parliament to bring this provision of the law into line with the  Constitution, and we, in order to review our decisions, we will  definitely implement the decision of the Constitutional Court,"  stressed Aksnanyan, again emphasizing that the decision of the  Constitutional Court does not provide for the dissolution of the  Vanadzor Council of Elders, hence, the question of his resignation  disappears.

Today the Constitutional Court of Armenia passed a verdict on the  suit of the "Elk" and "Tsarukyan" blocs regarding the  constitutionality of the meetings of the Vanadzor Council of Elders.   According to the verdict of the Constitutional Court, decisions N  2-H, 7-H, 8-H, 9-H adopted at the first meeting of the Vanadzor  Council of Elders of March 31, 2017 are unconstitutional. Also, the  Constitutional Court found the 30th article of the law on territorial  administration inadequate to the basic law of the country. Meanwhile,  the lawsuit contained several other articles as well. That is, the  Constitutional Court partially satisfied the lawsuit of the blocs.   This verdict of the Constitutional Court comes into force on March  31st. Meanwhile, in a conversation with journalists, member of the  Elk bloc Edmond Marukyan noted that this verdict of the  Constitutional Court confirms the fact that all the meetings of the  Vanadzor Elders Council, starting from the very first, were  unconstitutional. Therefore, he stressed, the Council of Elders of  Vanadzor should be dissolved and new elections should be appointed.   Recall that in the elections to the Council of Elders of Vanadzor,  the ruling Republican Party failed to win a majority, receiving 15  seats out of 33 However, during the secret, closed ballot in the  mayoral elections of Vanadzor, three opposition representatives  violated the joint agreement of the three opposition forces "Orinats  Yerkir" now "Armenian Renaissance", "Enlightened Armenia" party, now  part of the "Elk" bloc and the "Prosperous Armenia" party, now part  of the "Tsarukyan" editorial board) supported the RPA candidate  Mamikon Aslanyan . According to reliabale information of ArmInfo, two  of the three "renegades" were representatives of the "Orinats  Yerkir", moreover, one of them - Arkady Pelyshyan was a candidate for  mayor from this party. Nevertheless, already during the meetings of  the Council of Elders of Vanadzor the "renegades" did not venture  openly to oppose the decision of the political forces they  represented and did not participate in the meetings. Thus, the  meetings of the Council took place without securing a quorum, that  is, decisions were taken by a minority of votes. It was the  unconstitutionality of this fact that the representatives of the Elk  and Tsarukyan blocs tried to prove in the Constitutional Court.