Need or Greed?
ArmeniaNow.com has yet another distressing story about the current construction boom in the center of the Armenian capital. Unfortunately, these types of stories are now commonplace and rather than represent “development,” are perhaps testimony to everything that is wrong in the country.
It is widely known that, far from “state need,” the current property is being sought by a few powerful businessmen with government connections and/or positions. The property stands in the way of coveted development that will displace several hundred poor or marginally maintained, while enriching a few.
Human rights activists decry the action as a take over of property that violates the rights of the current residents.
Again, the allegation is made that the eviction of residents on prime territory for real estate development is both illegal and unconstitutional. Not that this will concern many buyers from the Diaspora or the elite in Armenia — or will it?
For example, in 1997 the Constitutional Court made a decision that a person’s ownership can be alienated on the basis set forth in the Constitution and in case of the absence of the owner’s consent the state can terminate ownership through adopting a specific law related to real estate.
“Both the decision of the Constitutional Court and the Civil Code consider it obligatory to settle the issue only by law,” Khachatryan says. “Meanwhile, there is no such law. Consequently, in considering these disputes courts must bring forward the issue of the anti-constitutionality of the government decisions, which has not been done by a single court.”
The full article can be read online here.
Eminent domain is a hot issue everywhere, I guess.
Comment by Katy — 4/29/2005 @ 8:12 pm
We’re not talking about eminent domain here because this means that there is the need for the state to take property for its own use. Also, there is appropiate compensation.
In the case of Yerevan, however, the seizure of land and property by the state REQUIRES that a law is passed in order to do so and NONE has. Therefore, this action is considered to be unlawful and unconstitutional.
Also, there is no need for the state to take this property unless you consider lining pockets to be in the national interest. The matter of appropiate compensation and the lack of the required law as dictated by the constitution are the main points.
Also, according to Wikipedia’s page on eminent domain, European countries consider the issue differently to the United States. As I recall, Armenia is a member of the Council of Europe and says it aspires to integration with Europe.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain.
Everything I’ve read so far indicates that the eviction of residents with insignificant compensation does not conform to either the law or the constitution.
This is the difference and one that I hope the Armenian Ombudsman, Larissa Alaverdian, will take up with the Council of Europe and in the European Court.
Basically, once again, adhering to the law is the key but in Armenia, there is none. It’s also another reason why we must have an independent judiciary.
Comment by Onnik — 4/29/2005 @ 8:27 pm
BTW: When the Armenian Government has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights it is also a matter of violating international committments. And when those that benefit are “a few powerful businessmen with government connections and/or positions” it becomes a matter of corruption.
Comment by Onnik — 4/29/2005 @ 8:39 pm