There is a post on the Facebook page about the Italian Consulate in Gyumri
The Shirak Marz Court of First Instance has received the answer of the respondent Antonio Domenico Montalto regarding the plaintiff, producer and former employee of the Italian Consulate Arman Mazmanyan’s suit. The third preliminary judicial hearing is scheduled for January 25 with Judge M. Gevorgyan’s chairing. A. Mazmanyan was verbally informed about his dismissal from work in September 2015. He used to work at the Italian consulate as a coordinator of consular programs since 1 February 2006. The consulate was located in Gyumri.
In an interview with Aravot, A. Mazmanyan said he has asked the consul to show him the order of the dismissal. He also wanted to know the reasons for the dismissal. To our question whether the employment relations are regulated by an agreement, A. Mazmanyan said he was hired for the job by number one order. A. Mazmanyan has turned to the Ambassador of the Italian Republic to Armenia (the Embassy is located in Yerevan) who replied in writing that the question should be addressed to the Consul. A. Mazmanyan says that without receiving an official response, he had even applied to the President of Italy and the Italian foreign minister. The latter’s staff has informed that the consulate will provide all the necessary documents to the plaintiff. Without receiving the order and reasons for his dismissal, the RA citizen has appealed to the Court of First Instance demanding all documents concerning him.
Last year, in December, during the preliminary court hearing, the court had received the response to the lawsuit. Consul Antonio Domenico Montalto wrote, “I am the honorary Consul of Italy. However, there is no Italian Honorary Consulate. This is evidenced by the reference issued by the State Registry of Legal Entities of the RA Ministry of Justice about the fact that according to the information available in the Unified State Registration logbook as of December 5, 2016, the Italian Honorary Consulate is not registered. Hence, I as Honorary Consul of Italy could not be an employer and issue orders, including hiring and dismissal.”
Read also
The order in A. Mazmanyan’s work-records book shown in the picture, however, tells us something else. Incidentally, the Consul says that the signature underneath the word “consul” in the book is not his. Hence, who has signed it, how and what was the status of A. Mazmanyan’s going to work every day to a workplace in the territory of another state? Opportunely, it is registered on the Facebook page as an official page of the consulate.
The consul informed that he has not violated the FOI law. Especially the requirement of Article 9, according to which the information holder are state and local self-government bodies, state agencies, budget financed organizations as well as public organizations and their officials, and any of them is not a consul. And reasoning that he is not the information holders, he refused to respond to his former employee. But even if we assume that he is not the information holder and does not provide information, so should the RA citizen not be protected by the RA Labor Code, with the employer-employee legal relationship. In connection with the “accusation” of the signature, A. Mazmanyan has appealed to the prosecutor’s office too.
Ruzan MINASYAN
