Thursday, 10 April 2014
Government’s common position on the Constitutional Court’s ruling over Funded Pensions Law
Since the Constitutional Court’s April 2 ruling, we have been facing a situation where a number of MPs who turned to the Constitutional Court, lawyers, public figures and journalists are circulating controversial and contradictory interpretations, comments and explanations regarding the further application of those provisions recognized anti-constitutional, as well as the inconsistencies of different paragraphs of the final decision. It is clear that such responses reflect the goals behind the subjective interests of various forces and individuals, which is a natural phenomenon. However, the intention to foster erroneous perceptions of law with political and personal purposes is unacceptable.
In this connection, the Government of the Republic of Armenia considers it necessary to point out that any comment concerning the Constitutional Court’s rulings, especially this decision, should be based solely on the Constitution, the Law on Constitutional Court and the provisions of the ruling at issue.
(1) The Constitutional Court considered as unconstitutional and invalidated 8 provisions, while 7 others were recognized as consistent to the Constitution within the framework of those legal norms specified in the ruling.
At the same time, pursuant to section 7 of the final paragraph of the ruling, for legal security reasons, a deadline is set for the ineffectiveness of said unconstitutional norms until September 30, 2014, which means that the provisions will temporarily remain in force until September 30, that is, they shall be deemed effective, while the requirement for reassessment regards the funded payments made before the deadline of September 30.
(2) In accordance with Article 68 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, there are only three cases where the Constitutional Court’s rulings and decisions may have a retroactive effect: when unconstitutional is recognized a provision of the Criminal Code, the Administrative Code or when the Constitutional Court gives its decision a retroactive effect. In the given case the Constitutional Court not only did not report its decision retroactive, but the Court has put off the deadline for invalidating the affected legal act’s provisions until September 30, which in accordance with paragraph 15 of this Article means that the contested provisions shall be deemed as constitutional before September 30.
(3) The Constitutional Court’s decision clearly states that Article 5 of the Law will continue in force in its integrity by September 30, which means that the funded period shall be applicable to all those born on January 1, 1974 and later, including hired workers, notaries, private entrepreneurs. In addition, pursuant to paragraph 1, Article 7 of the Law, they shall comply with the relevant cumulative monthly fee, and this requirement is valid till September 30.
(4) Either Article 76 shall be effective until September 30. The Government finds that in the face such clarity the dissemination of fabricated controversy and misinterpretations is indeed the result of quite a different motivation, which can be addressed in other format
We are urging all interested parties to take part in the drafting of the proposed amendments to the funded pension law that will bring it into conformity with the requirements of the Constitutional Court’s decision.
