For which Applications Cadastre may Charge a Fee?
Last week RA Constitutional Court recognized the case of conformity of some Articles of RA Law on “State registration of rights to the property” with RA Constitution contradicting on the basis of the application of “Freedom of Information Center” NGO, on defining payment for information on rights and restrictions to the property.
168.am made inquiries from Vardan Hasratyan, Chairman of the State Committee of Real Estate Cadastre, how he might comment on decision by the Constitutional Court, amount of the fee to be charged from physical and legal persons by the Committee, which mechanism is operated, and whether it’s true that one-page application costs AMD 10 thousand, and if accelerated—AMD 20 thousand, whether that’s legal.
V.Hasratyan told, the Committee isn’t entitled to comment on decision by the Constitutional Court, it was made upon the application of an NGO, and the national Assembly appeared as a respondent. As for amount of fees and terms for allocation of information on real estate by Cadastre, according to him, it’s allocated pursuant amounts and terms of Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the existent RA Law on “State registration of rights to the property.” However, the Committee commented on the decision by the Constitutional Court. It particularly read that pursuant information defined in point 12, Article 73 of RA Law on “State registration of rights to the property,” AMD 1000 fee is defined. Moreover, the Law defines advantages as well on 50% of the defined fee for information on real estate in bordering and mountainous areas upon decision by RA Government, on free allocation to certain bodies.
Amendments had already been developed by Cadastre, which was sent to the interested bodies for discussion. In that period amendments to RA Constitution have been implemented, based on which a new change has been supplemented, which defined allocation of free information also to RA Human Rights Defender and head of Public Defender’s Office—the insolvent, as well as for information of crucial and public importance to defend a person’s right.”
Out of Constitutional amendments and decision by RA Constitutional Court, the Committee has developed provisions on demonstrating diversified approach on allocation of information, which will be executed in term defined by the Constitutional Court.
It’s noteworthy to mention, that despite the abovementioned decision by the Constitutional Court, the Cadastre system recently is taking steps towards fee access of information on real estate for physical and legal persons on a website.
The Constitutional Court defined a term for its decision—until November 1, before that former order will be executed.
According to clarifications by Freedom of Information Center of Armenia (FOI), the Constitutional Court has annulled provisions, touching upon the issue of fee charged for allocation of information of public importance for person’s protection, as well as its amount an order, i.e. it was confirmed by the Constitutional Court, when a person demands information from local self-government bodies (e.g. information on prohibitions imposed on a person’s estate), the information shouldn’t be sold to him/her, but allocated for free, and the fee may be defined only in case, when the payment was formed as a result of factual and reasonable expenditures of allocation of service or information and doesn’t exceed those expenditures. For instance, if a person needs information, for which it’s necessary to carry out a survey demanding expenses, then it may be allocated by a fee, which, however, shouldn’t exceed the amount of information provision. Or, for instance, if a person wants to obtain information on prohibitions imposed on his/her estate not electronically but printed, or a flash disc, in this case a fee may be defined, which shouldn’t exceed the price for a flash disc. In this regard, the Constitutional Court stressed, although defining the amount of fees is within liabilities of the legislative body, however, it should comply with the principle of proportionality. This means, necessity for charging should be linked to service provided or to compensation of a reasonable expenditure, and not on arbitrarily defined fee, to get income.
By Gayane Khachatryan
