HY RU EN
Asset 3

Loading

End of content No more pages to load

Your search did not match any articles

Tirayr Muradyan

Hetq v Physics Institute: Amount to be Charged for Information Disclosure Remains a Sticking Point

The Investigative Journalists NGO and the Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Physics Institute) have failed to reach a settlement in a case involving the payment of money for the disclosure of information from a publicly funded institution.

Last year, the Investigative Journalists (IJ) NGO wrote to the Institute, requesting that it hand over decisions the board of trustees had made over the past nine years.

Institute Board Chairman Nerses Yeritsyan said the IJ would have to pay AMD 550,000 ($1,150) as a service charge. The IJ (publisher of Hetq) to the Institute to court, seeking that the information be provided at no charge.

At today’s court session, Institute lawyer Emma Hakobyan said the board took steps to resolve the matter but to no avail. Hakobyan said the Institute suggested that the sides meet and discuss the matter but that the meeting never materialized.

Hakobyan said that the Institute provided the IJ with the agendas of the board meetings to clarify the amount of information requested, but this too led nowhere.

Grisha Balasanyan, a lawyer representing the IJ, corrected the above claim by noting that it was the IJ who requested the agendas.

“It has been provided, but the information is not reliable. One board meeting was convened in one year. Since it is not credible, no talks were held as to content,” said Balasanyan.

When asked by Judge Anna Pilosyan why the plaintiff believes the Institute shouldn’t charge for the documents, Balasanyan said the amount was excessive and baseless. The lawyer noted that the Institute could have only asked for compensation for the paper and drives.

Balasanyan noted that it was a violation of the constitution to hire and/or pay people to provide information and that such excessive fees limit information accessibility.

Hakobyan countered that the Institute could not compel its employees to undertake such a job without payment.

The court noted that the parties had found no basis for reconciliation and adjourned until March 6.

Write a comment

If you found a typo you can notify us by selecting the text area and pressing CTRL+Enter