"Zhoghovurd" daily writes:
"The civil court of the first instance of Yerevan city, presided over by judge Yerem Yesoyan, completely rejected the claim of big businessman Davit Yeremyan against "Zhoghovurd newspaper editorial office" LLC for defamation and compensation of 6 million drams.
The case referred to the article published in "Zhoghovurd" daily newspaper and ArmLur.am, where it was mentioned that "the businessman attends lunch with the Prosecutor General, taking advantage of his patronage of impunity." After those shots, we recalled the scandalous cases related to the businesses belonging to Davit Yeremyan, how the cases related to him were dismissed."
The publication used expressions including "modern-day oligarch" as well as critical observations about possible influence and impunity. What did the plaintiff demand? Davit Yeremyan claimed that the published information does not correspond to reality and tarnishes his honor, dignity and business reputation. He demanded from the court: • publicly deny published information, • confiscate AMD 6,000,000 non-material damage, • compensate 180,000 drams of state duty, • confiscate AMD 1,500,000 as a lawyer's fee.
Key legal conclusions of the court
The following question was crucial for the court: whether the contested expressions are factual data or evaluative judgments. The court came to a clear conclusion: the disputed wordings are evaluative judgments based on events of public importance and represent the author's critical opinion.
In the decision, it was distinguished that the truthfulness of evaluative judgments is not subject to proof. This approach is consistent with the developed practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular Lingens v. to the principle formulated in the Austria case, according to which the existence of facts can be proved, while evaluative judgments cannot be subjected to the same standards.
The court also referred to Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria case, where it was recorded that journalistic freedom also includes the possibility of certain exaggerations and harsh wording. Why was the phrase "new-day oligarch" not considered defamation? The court specifically referred to the word "oligarch", noting that in Armenian explanatory dictionaries it is described as a description of a person with a large economic influence.
Therefore, it itself does not contain a specific provable factual accusation, but is a political-social assessment. Thus, the court concluded that this definition cannot be considered as factual information that does not correspond to reality. Absence of damage One of the mandatory elements of defamation is the existence of actual damage. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that his business reputation suffered concrete, measurable damage after the publication.
It was emphasized that only subjective dissatisfaction is not enough to confirm the fact of defamation. Lack of intentionality The court also noted that the intention of the defendant to deliberately defame the reputation of the plaintiff was not proven. The publication was evaluated as a critical analysis made within the framework of journalistic activity. The result
The court completely rejected: • the demand for defamation recognition, • the requirement of a public denial; • 6,000,000 drams compensation claim, • Claims for confiscation of court costs. A journalistic victory This judgment is an important precedent for the protection of freedom of speech.
The court clearly separated factual information and evaluative judgment and reaffirmed that sharp criticism on topics of public interest is protected by the Constitution and standards of international law. Let us inform you that the interests of "Zhoghovurd newspaper editorial board" LLC were represented in the case by lawyer Sergey Voskanyan, whose legal position was based on the protection of evaluative judgments and ECHR case law.
