Intentional distortion of the Constitution is a very dangerous step. I think that the CC members should decide on stopping Vahe Grigoryan's powers. Gor Hovhannisyan

In the field of law, the dilettante has reached dangerous levels and has already entered the Constitutional Court. Dr. Gor Hovhannisyan, associate professor of German and European Constitutional and Administrative Law, as well as Associate Professor at the Department of International Law at the Hagen University, Associate Professor of the Police and Security Administration at the Berlin Institute of Economics and Law, held an interview with Tert.am. He recalled that Vahe Grigoryan, a Constitutional Court judge, had raised attention in the year before the President of the Republic of Armenia, claiming that the process would be held through a public and transparent competition, but when the President nominated his candidacy, he was no longer anxious. He questioned Vahe Grigoryan's professional abilities after the official statement, that he will assume the powers of the CC Chairman.

- It was legitimate for RA President Armen Sargsyan to nominate Vahe Grigoryan a member of the Constitutional Court or did not have the right to nominate him for the second time.

- My opinion has already been repeatedly stated. I can only add that I refused my candidacy for the next two terms. Besides, Vahe Grigoryan himself raised attention against the practice of nominating a nominee by the President a year ago, demanding that the process take place through a public and transparent competition. But when the President proposed his nomination without announcing a contest, he did not complain of the practice and did not give up his candidacy. In fact, it was unacceptable for him to nominate another candidate without the competition, and to nominate his candidacy without a competition is also acceptable. This is a very unscrupulous approach. The other unprotectedness is to apply to the President of the Republic three times with a request to nominate his own candidacy, which he thinks he is still illegitimate. At last, he has declared an unprincipled approach that he does not pertain to the position of the CC judge, but has applied three times to nominate him. Such an unprincipled person cannot be a CC judge. Besides, he has a clear political affinity for the ruling party. It is indisputable that he is not politically neutral, so he is not satisfied with the claim to the Constitutional Court. One can also recall the talk of the NSS and the SIS chiefs regarding his political approach. Therefore, there were many obstacles concerning his nomination, which was ignored by the President of Armenia.

- Vahe Grigoryan, a member of the Constitutional Court, stated in his speech that he is assuming the duties of CC President. Do you consider his justifications as constitutional or legal? Is it a legal dispute or distortion of law by Vahe Grigoryan?

- What is said above is, in fact, a serious suspicion of its highly professional preparedness with a distorted interpretation of the Constitution's norms. To be honest, I am ashamed to seriously consider this issue because it is a highly primitive interpretation. But on the other hand, the law-enforcing dimension has reached dangerous levels and has already entered the Constitutional Court. It must be countered, otherwise the consequences can be devastating for the country. Many adequate lawyers have already expressed their disagreement over such misstatements of the Constitution, even in the light of the principles of jurisprudence, to comment on the issue in detail, the need for which would not have been. However, when the constitutional norms are primitive interpreted by the CC judge, it is already a very serious threat to the country's constitutionality and should be avoided at once.
I will only add the following to my colleagues' opinions: In terms of interpretation, two aspects must be distinguished: whether the interpretation of the norm is true and whether this interpretation is mandatory.
The interpretation of the conventions can also be true or false, which is understandable because law is science, like any other science, and has its own laws and principles on which the results of that science are measured. The fact that jurisprudence is a science of interpretation does not at all mean you can do any foolish claims and make a comment. The comment also has rules and criteria that measure the interpretation results in terms of their right or wrong. Otherwise, it would not be possible to evaluate the law students' examinations at the university, for in the case of the most rational solution of the legal problem, the author could argue that it is his understanding of the norm and the end. Any solution would be right. It is clear that it is not so. Law students are also dismissed because they are wrongly solving the problem, for example, due to incorrect or at least unacceptable interpretation of the applicable law.

- There is an opinion that Vahe Grigoryan simply interprets the Constitution and the sample.

- Even the literal interpretation of the Constitution does not give the result that Grigoryan tries. In accordance with Article 213 (1) of the Constitution, the President and members of the Constitutional Court continue to hold office until the expiration of the term set out in the 2005 amendments to the Constitution
First, what does the term "keep office" mean in the sense of Article 213 (1) in the Constitution? It means that they continue to engage in what they have been doing so far, that is, to carry out the same powers that they had in 2005. By the Constitution: And what activity did they have, what powers they had? The answer to that question is, of course, In the Constitution: According to Article 99, the Constitutional Court consists of 9 members, and Article 93 states that the constitutional justice in the Republic of Armenia is exercised by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, in 2005, Under the Constitution, CC members have conducted constitutional justice and are currently pursuing constitutional justice at the request of Article 213 (1). Constitutional justice is the solution of constitutional legal disputes, for instance making decisions on applications submitted to the Constitutional Court. Consequently, members of the Constitutional Court continue to resolve constitutional legal disputes.

As for the term of office of the members of the Constitutional Court, they differ depending on whether the concrete member has assumed his position under the Constitution. The members designated under the Constitution of 1995 are enrolled until the age of 70 (Article 96, paragraph 2), and members appointed under the Constitution of 2005 up to the age of 65 (Article 96, paragraph 2). ). For example, Mr. Felix Tokhyan or Hrant Nazaryan was appointed in 1995. Under Article 96 § 2 of the Constitution, the term of office will last until the age of 70. Other members of the court have been appointed in 2005. Under the Constitution, they will serve until the age of 65. Judges appointed after April 2018 will be appointed for 12 years (Article 166, Part 1, Part 1 of the current Constitution). There is no discrimination here because each of them has been informed of the conditions under which he was appointed and agreed to these terms.

The existence of the first sentence of Article 213 of the Constitution is compulsory. Even if the current Constitution literally envisaged a settlement according to which the powers of the CC members were terminated or they continued to serve for 12 years, just as the newly appointed judges would have had an anti-constitutional rule and hence invalid because the disputed person's legal status the principle of the prohibition of retrospective law that derives from the principle of the rule of law. The principle of the State of Law, as set out in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the current Constitution, is protected by the guarantee of eternity of Article 203. Article 203 of the RA Constitution and the unchanged constitutional norms listed in Articles 1, 2 and 3 have a higher legal force than other constitutional norms. In the case of collision between conventional and constitutional norms, the constitutional norms with lower legal force are anti-constitutional norms and are invalid. In the constitutional right of science this phenomenon is called "unconstitutional constitutional right". Therefore, it would be unconstitutional and void to prescribe other regulation other than the content of Article 213 (1). Paragraph 1 of the Article 213 of the Constitution stipulates that the In the Transitional Provisions of the Constitution, in accordance with Article 117, paragraph 13, the current members of the Constitutional Court continue to serve until their 70th birthday. As you can see, the Armenian constitution is always acting in the same logic, strictly adhering to the principle of the retroactivity of the law.

Moreover, it is also impossible to alter the 1st sentence of Article 213 of the Constitution. From the point of view of the existence and operation of the guarantee of eternity of Article 203 of the RA Constitution, it is necessary to distinguish between the constitution as a pouvoir constituant and the constitutional amendments (Article 202 of the RA Constitution), as pouvoir constitué. There is a subaccount relationship between the two. The Constituent and the Amendment of the Constitution are different entities not only from the organizational, but also from the functional point of view. As a state body, the constitutional amendment legislator is inferior to the constitution. His powers are derived from the Constitution, which he can carry out only within the framework of the Constitution. The pouvoir constituant and the pouvoir constitué distinction of the constitution and the subaccount relationship between these two functions are the logical precondition of the constitutional legal guarantee of eternity. The guarantee of eternity would not serve its purpose if it were not for this distinction. From here it stems from the guarantee of eternity and the mandatory hierarchy between the norms of the constitutional and constitutional amendments. Based on this logic, it is possible to check the constitutionality of the draft constitutional amendments (Article 168 § 2 of the RA Constitution). Consequently, if now the attempt is to alter the provisions of Article 213, paragraph 1, with content different from the one that will undermine the legal status of CC members, will be contrary to Article 1 of the Constitution, so it will be unconstitutional and invalid.

As you can see, it is not possible to comment on the constitutional norms of any interpretive interpretation in any other sense than I have presented, but it is also impossible to amend Article 213 (1) in the Constitution. Consequently, Vahe Grigoryan's interpretation is wrong and distorts not only the current Constitution, but also all the jurisprudence.

As to the question of what the interpretation of the case is obligatory, Vahe Grigoryan's fate is also not here. Courts are eligible for compulsory interpretation of laws. The state and its citizens are restricted by the interpretation of the law that the courts have given. The power of interpretation of the constitutional norms by the ultimate binding force belongs exclusively to the Constitutional Court. Moreover, the Constitutional Court carries out its powers only within the framework of concrete constitutional legal disputes, fixing its comments in its decisions. In other cases, the interpretation of the constitutional norms by the Constitutional Court's judgments is the private judgment of a particular judge and does not have any force, since it cannot be that every citizen interprets the law just as he thinks it is right and that it is imposed on others. Through compulsory and state power, only law is required by the interpretation of the courts. Consequently, it is just ridiculous that when a lawyer in front of the cameras alleges that the CC President Hrayr Tovmasyan is no longer the president of the court and should not go to work because that is what Vahe Grigoryan thinks. Vahe Grigoryan's opinion is not only mistaken, but also does not have to be mandatory for any person.

- Is the current situation is possible in Armenia: to create a judicial and not a constitutional crisis.

- Certainly not, because, as we have seen, no one's comment is constrained. How to understand the provisions of the current Constitution, only the Constitutional Court can decide for all of us with compulsory force. As long as the CC does not comment on these rules, others' comments will remain purely private. The same applies to my point of view here.

- As a constitutional lawyer, how do you picture the solution of this issue?

- I have already said that the deliberate misrepresentation of the Constitution by the Constitutional Court is a very dangerous and unacceptable step and should not be without consequences. The Constitutional Court judge, who has an open defamation attitude to the country's current Constitution, calls it the “birth of rape”, deliberately distorts the meaning of the Constitution, acting in the parliament of his official status, cannot and should not continue to serve as a judge. He is obviously unable to carry out the constitutional justice on the basis of the existing Constitution and to protect the Constitution. In addition, the practice of misappropriation of CC President's powers is already a grave breach, so I see the resolution of this issue in Article 164 of the Constitution. Within the framework of Part 9: I think that all eight members of the Constitutional Court have to make a decision on the grounds of making a substantial disciplinary breach of Vahe Grigoryan's termination.