The Constitutional Court Has Granted the Application of the Human Rights Defender

The Constitutional Court has suspended the application of the Government's decision regarding the composition changes of the boards of trustees at three state higher educational institutions based on my application made on June 22.

The contested decision establishes the composition of the boards of trustees for three universities—the Yerevan State University, Khachatur Abovian Armenian State Pedagogical University, and Shiraz M. Nalbandyan State University—at the legally stipulated minimum threshold of 20 members, with the following proportions: 55 percent or 11 members from the founder, 10 percent or 2 members from the state management authority, 10 percent or 2 members from the academic staff of the university, and 25 percent or 5 members from representatives of the student body. This regulation means that the members appointed by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and the authorized body will make up 65 percent of the council in these three universities. Therefore, the votes of the members elected by the academic staff and students will have no significant role in decision-making.

It is noteworthy that the Government initiated such changes while the law on “Higher Education and Science,” adopted by the National Assembly on March 24, 2021, is subject to contestation in the Constitutional Court. The reinforcement of provisions that raise concerns regarding the constitutionality of the disputed law through the Government's decision is problematic both substantively and procedurally.

I specifically note that the public discussion process for the drafts enshrining the disputed provisions has not been fully ensured. The contested regulations were adopted before the public discussion period had ended, bypassing the processes of discussion and approval. Moreover, neither the draft presented for public discussion nor the contested regulations were submitted to the Human Rights Defender for opinion.

I consider the Constitutional Court's decision to be significant, which, although not final and does not determine the outcome of the case, pertains only to the suspension of the decision's operation. Specifically, the High Court has suspended the action of the disputed provisions until the conclusion of the case trial with its decision No. SDAO-121 on June 22, 2021. The constitutionality of the contested provisions is still to be discussed in the Court's primary session, scheduled for July 27 of this year.