Pursuant to the response brought against the appeal, the suspension motion was not substantiated and was subject to rejection, as Davtyan and Khachatryan who gave interview to “Aravot”, at the moment of publication of the article, should have had required and sufficient factual grounds for the publication of the information rather than “gathering further evidence.” The Court of Appeal considers the proceeding of the appeal brought against the court verdict issued by the First Instance Courts of General Jurisdiction of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Administrative Districts in favor of former Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan’s daughter Narine Sargsyan and her father-in-law, Head of Financial Supervision Department at the Central Bank of Republic of Armenia Hrant Suvaryan. The plaintiffs are Susanna Davtyan and Lemberik Khachatryan. The Court of First Instance examines the suit on the claim to reimburse the damage caused to the honor and dignity, and the third person was recognized to be “Aravot” Daily LLC Company.
Member of Chamber of Advocates of Armenia, representative of the Sargsyan’s family Anahit Sargsyan had sent her response to the court against the appeal to the Court of Appeal. The representative considers the plaintiff’s objections and the arguments brought therein unsubstantiated. According to the representative’s counter-arguments, the plaintiff had informed that AC/0499/05/14 administrative case was available at the administrative court, where the Yerevan mayor’s 5896-A decision dated 22.11.2013 was disputed. The court failed to the plaintiff to present evidence and to suspend the proceedings by suit of honor and dignity until the completion of the examination of the case by the administrative court. The mentioned administrative case challenged the issue of legality of the decision issued by the mayor, in particular, it referred to restoration of the ownership right for building-construction located on the land covering 226-3 sq.m., which is adjacent to the land under their general ownership covering the area of 810.0 sq.m. that is occupied as a dwelling house for Arthur Aristakesi Khachatryan, Hranht Suvaryan and Hayk Viliki Yeghoyan. “The aforesaid made it clear that there was no impossibility of implementing the examination of this civil trial, which would become the basis for the suspension of the proceedings of the case” This criminal case considers the claim of reimbursement of the damage caused to the plaintiff’s honor and dignity, which was made public through mass media, and the legality of the decision issued by the mayor was challenged in an administrative manner,” mentioned A. Sargsyan in her response. To the point, by saying to publicize the subject of dispute, A. Sargsyan meant “Aravot” Daily and www.aravotam’s publications dated February 7 and February 8.
According to A. Sargsyan, the respondents should not have tried implementing the evidence for validity of the information published earlier through the judicial act to be passed by another court in the future. The Sargsyans making a reference to the “Lingens v. Austria” case of the European Court of Human Rights, cited, “It is extremely important for the mass media to check the veracity of the information disseminated thereby prior to dissemination of relevant information rather than trying “obtained” evidence during the court dispute.” In the disputed articles, “Aravot” had verify its obtained information by equally turning to the parties, it’s another matter verifying the boundaries of “checking” and “obtaining” the information. The representative believes that the appeal on the part that given publication did not pursue to defame the plaintiffs’ honor and dignity, but it was a forced move to defend their interests, is also groundless, and that the court has made a thorough investigation in this regard.
Ruzan MINASYAN
