The parking was not parallel to the march
The claimant’s representative, Hayk Sahakyan filed a lawsuit requesting the court to invalidate the administrative act of the Road Traffic Police, adopted in violation of the law.
The administrative act was adopted on the basis of point 80 of Annex 1 of the RA’s Government Decision 955-N of June 28, 2007, according to which vehicles must be parked in a row parallel to the edge of the roadway, except for those places (local widening of the roadway), where other forms of configurations of parking of vehicles are allowed. In the present case, the claimant had parked his vehicle on the section of the road where there was a local widening; the location of that section of the road allowed the vehicles to be arranged differently. However, the evidence obtained by the administrative authorities by video cameras did not reflect any feature of the committed offense.
Furthermore, the administrative body did not take into account the fact that the vehicle was parked in the wide lane of the roadway, which allowed other forms of parking.
As a result, the Administrative court concluded that the defendant had violated article 23.2.2 b) of the 1968 Convention on Road Traffic, and on this basis, the administrative act was declared invalid.