Tweet
RULED CONSTITUTIONAL: SUPREME COURT SAYS DISPUTED LIBEL LAW PROVISIONS NO BREACH OF BASIC LAW
By Gayane Abrahamyan
ArmeniaNow
16.11.11 | 12:06
The Constitutional Court of Armenia on Tuesday ruled that a Civil
Code article that Ombudsman Karen Andreasyan believes poses threat
to freedom of speech does not breach the main laws of the country.
Still, the Court made a few clarifications regarding the ombudsman's
case which gave Andreasyan some grounds to call the ultimate verdict
"encouraging enough."
On November 15, the state-paid human rights defender asked the
Constitutional Court to consider whether Civil Code Article 1087.1
(that concerns media liability in paying compensations and damages
in libel cases) does not correspond to a number of requirements of
the Constitution - a set of constant laws that take precedent in
legal disputes.
Andreasyan was one of those who in 2010 worked out amendments to
decriminalize libel and make defamation of character punishable in the
form of monetary fines only. There is a predominant body of opinion
that decriminalization of libel is a positive development. Even so,
the change brought about quite a flurry of lawsuits from former and
current officials who had been reluctant to sue media before as they
were wary of possible strong reactions such cases would elicit among
the local and international civil-right communities. The financial
pressure that Armenia media losing in such proceedings appear to be
reeling under at the moment has elicited an equally strong reaction as
civil rights activists here and abroad have regarded damages awarded
to plaintiffs in a number of litigations to be a sort of instrument
to make media go out of business and thus stifle free speech.
Within a year after the application of the law decriminalizing libel
some three dozen cases have been brought against media on related
claims. The plaintiffs -- among them Armenia's second president
Robert Kocharyan and his family, influential members of parliament,
prominent businessmen -- would demand the maximum monetary compensation
stipulated by the law - 3 million (about $8,000).
"The vagueness of corresponding provisions and the absence of clear
parameters for setting the size of awarded compensation in practice
have led to a disproportionate restriction of the right to the freedom
of expression, thus endangering the further activities of some mass
media," Ombudsman Andreasyan said at the Constitutional Court hearing
in stating his case.
The Court held that the law conforms to the Constitution, but it
also stressed in the ruling that those applying this law shall, as
a priority, consider non-material forms of punishment (refutation,
apology), then the material status and level of income the defendant
has, shall abstain from awarding damages to the plaintiff in cases
when that would constitute a disproportionate financial burden for
the defendant and thus would be critical in the matter of the media
outlet's continued operations.
According to the ombudsman, such a ruling, which, as a matter of
fact, has the force of a law, "will make it possible to avoid abuse
by unscrupulous judges."
The latest libel lawsuit in Armenia was presented against the
"Hraparak" newspaper (that has a daily circulation of 3,200 hard
copies and also operates a popular online resource) as recently as last
week. The plaintiff is lawyer Artur Grigoryan, who accuses the paper
of publishing six comments by readers on its website that he claims
were damaging to his reputation. The lawyer seeks a compensation of
a total of 18 million drams (about $47,000) - quite a large sum of
money for newspapers according to local standards.
Hraparak editor Armine Ohanyan insisted that the newspaper was not
responsible for readers' comments and the goal of the suit was to
"ruin the newspaper financially and make it close down."
In the past several months the issue of libel suits in Armenia has
evoked a broad response not only from local human rights activists
and media organizations, but also from some international structures.
In a November 10 letter to Armenia's Foreign Minister Edward
Nalbandyan, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatovic, expressed
concern over the growing number of libel suits filed against Armenia's
news outlets. She called upon the authorities to further reform the
legislation to adequately protect the media in civil defamation cases.
"I welcomed decriminalization of defamation in Armenia in May 2010
as a significant step toward ensuring a media-friendly environment.
Regretfully since then, almost 30 civil defamation lawsuits have
been brought against newspapers, including 11 this year," Mijatovic
said in her letter. "In most cases, the compensation sought is out
of proportion to the damage allegedly inflicted."
The latest Constitutional Court ruling is likely to be incorporated
into legal practice very soon as several libel lawsuits are pending
in courts.
According to legal specialist at the Committee for the Protection of
Freedom of Speech, lawyer Olga Safaryan, "soon it will become clear
how far the Constitutional Court's ruling is effective in practice."
But media chiefs still remain pessimistic about the prospect of any
changes taking place in litigations that they think will continue to
threaten their solvency.
"Of course, the ruling is quite vague, there is still no clarity, which
gives little cause for optimism," commented Hraparak editor Ohanyan.
Meanwhile, John Hughes, an American journalist and founding editor
of ArmeniaNow and New Times Journalism Training Center NGO, says:
"While the law surely needs some work, the troubling pattern that has
emerged of so many slander suits is indicative of a greater problem
in Armenia. That is: Oligarchs or other persons of authority have -
because of who they are, and not what the law says - the upper hand
in the justice system. Like plenty of other laws on the books, this
may not be so much about a vague writing of the law, but is more
about whether any law in Armenia is enforced with equal justice for
both parties."
By Gayane Abrahamyan
ArmeniaNow
16.11.11 | 12:06
The Constitutional Court of Armenia on Tuesday ruled that a Civil
Code article that Ombudsman Karen Andreasyan believes poses threat
to freedom of speech does not breach the main laws of the country.
Still, the Court made a few clarifications regarding the ombudsman's
case which gave Andreasyan some grounds to call the ultimate verdict
"encouraging enough."
On November 15, the state-paid human rights defender asked the
Constitutional Court to consider whether Civil Code Article 1087.1
(that concerns media liability in paying compensations and damages
in libel cases) does not correspond to a number of requirements of
the Constitution - a set of constant laws that take precedent in
legal disputes.
Andreasyan was one of those who in 2010 worked out amendments to
decriminalize libel and make defamation of character punishable in the
form of monetary fines only. There is a predominant body of opinion
that decriminalization of libel is a positive development. Even so,
the change brought about quite a flurry of lawsuits from former and
current officials who had been reluctant to sue media before as they
were wary of possible strong reactions such cases would elicit among
the local and international civil-right communities. The financial
pressure that Armenia media losing in such proceedings appear to be
reeling under at the moment has elicited an equally strong reaction as
civil rights activists here and abroad have regarded damages awarded
to plaintiffs in a number of litigations to be a sort of instrument
to make media go out of business and thus stifle free speech.
Within a year after the application of the law decriminalizing libel
some three dozen cases have been brought against media on related
claims. The plaintiffs -- among them Armenia's second president
Robert Kocharyan and his family, influential members of parliament,
prominent businessmen -- would demand the maximum monetary compensation
stipulated by the law - 3 million (about $8,000).
"The vagueness of corresponding provisions and the absence of clear
parameters for setting the size of awarded compensation in practice
have led to a disproportionate restriction of the right to the freedom
of expression, thus endangering the further activities of some mass
media," Ombudsman Andreasyan said at the Constitutional Court hearing
in stating his case.
The Court held that the law conforms to the Constitution, but it
also stressed in the ruling that those applying this law shall, as
a priority, consider non-material forms of punishment (refutation,
apology), then the material status and level of income the defendant
has, shall abstain from awarding damages to the plaintiff in cases
when that would constitute a disproportionate financial burden for
the defendant and thus would be critical in the matter of the media
outlet's continued operations.
According to the ombudsman, such a ruling, which, as a matter of
fact, has the force of a law, "will make it possible to avoid abuse
by unscrupulous judges."
The latest libel lawsuit in Armenia was presented against the
"Hraparak" newspaper (that has a daily circulation of 3,200 hard
copies and also operates a popular online resource) as recently as last
week. The plaintiff is lawyer Artur Grigoryan, who accuses the paper
of publishing six comments by readers on its website that he claims
were damaging to his reputation. The lawyer seeks a compensation of
a total of 18 million drams (about $47,000) - quite a large sum of
money for newspapers according to local standards.
Hraparak editor Armine Ohanyan insisted that the newspaper was not
responsible for readers' comments and the goal of the suit was to
"ruin the newspaper financially and make it close down."
In the past several months the issue of libel suits in Armenia has
evoked a broad response not only from local human rights activists
and media organizations, but also from some international structures.
In a November 10 letter to Armenia's Foreign Minister Edward
Nalbandyan, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatovic, expressed
concern over the growing number of libel suits filed against Armenia's
news outlets. She called upon the authorities to further reform the
legislation to adequately protect the media in civil defamation cases.
"I welcomed decriminalization of defamation in Armenia in May 2010
as a significant step toward ensuring a media-friendly environment.
Regretfully since then, almost 30 civil defamation lawsuits have
been brought against newspapers, including 11 this year," Mijatovic
said in her letter. "In most cases, the compensation sought is out
of proportion to the damage allegedly inflicted."
The latest Constitutional Court ruling is likely to be incorporated
into legal practice very soon as several libel lawsuits are pending
in courts.
According to legal specialist at the Committee for the Protection of
Freedom of Speech, lawyer Olga Safaryan, "soon it will become clear
how far the Constitutional Court's ruling is effective in practice."
But media chiefs still remain pessimistic about the prospect of any
changes taking place in litigations that they think will continue to
threaten their solvency.
"Of course, the ruling is quite vague, there is still no clarity, which
gives little cause for optimism," commented Hraparak editor Ohanyan.
Meanwhile, John Hughes, an American journalist and founding editor
of ArmeniaNow and New Times Journalism Training Center NGO, says:
"While the law surely needs some work, the troubling pattern that has
emerged of so many slander suits is indicative of a greater problem
in Armenia. That is: Oligarchs or other persons of authority have -
because of who they are, and not what the law says - the upper hand
in the justice system. Like plenty of other laws on the books, this
may not be so much about a vague writing of the law, but is more
about whether any law in Armenia is enforced with equal justice for
both parties."