CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 août 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s7DF027B3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s99FFA883 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7BF9C973 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:0.05pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s50CB62E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFB30C84 { width:4.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1C90AC38 { width:6.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8508A14D { width:8.94pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s14AC500A { width:3.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3E39F0D2 { width:24.22pt; display:inline-block } .s8554B3DC { width:103.75pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION CASE OF HRACHYA HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 15028/16)   JUDGMENT   Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Applicant ordered to pay damages in civil proceedings brought against him after he had reported alleged corrupt activities by his former colleague in private correspondence with the latter’s hierarchy • Protection regime for freedom of expression of whistle-blowers should not automatically cease to apply because work-based relationship has ended • General criteria and principles established in Guja v.   Moldova [GC] and reaffirmed in Halet v.   Luxembourg [GC] applied • Domestic courts’ failure to consider overall context, in particular applicant’s use of internal reporting mechanism meant to be strictly confidential • Formalistic approach adopted could have chilling effect • Failure to address applicant’s public-interest arguments • Failure to explain why alleged reputational damage to former colleague outweighed general interest • Substantial award of damages, resulting in applicant’s flat and car being seized, disproportionately affecting him • Interference not “necessary in a democratic society”   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 27 August 2024   FINAL   27/11/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Hrachya Harutyunyan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , President ,   Tim Eicke,   Faris Vehabović,   Branko Lubarda,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Anne Louise Bormann , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 15028/16) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Armenian national, Mr Hrachya Harutyunyan (“the applicant”), on 4 March 2016; the decision to give notice to the Armenian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention concerning the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations and the decision not to admit to the case file the Government’s belated reply to the applicant’s observations and just satisfaction claims; Having deliberated in private on 25 June 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns alleged violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention in relation to insult and defamation proceedings brought against him after he had reported alleged corrupt activities by his former colleague in private correspondence with the latter’s hierarchy. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Yerevan. He was represented by Mr A. Ghazaryan and Ms M. Baghdasaryan, lawyers practising in Yerevan. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5 .     Between 2002 and 2011 the applicant worked for the Electric Networks of Armenia Closed Joint-Stock Company (“the ENA”), at the material time the sole electricity supplier in Armenia, based in Yerevan. It is undisputed by the parties that, at the material time, the ENA was owned by the Russian company Inter RAO EES (“the company”). From 2008 until his departure in October 2011, the applicant was Head of the Security and Administration Department. 6 .     On an unspecified date the company published an announcement entitled “Let’s Fight Together Against Corruption” on its website, under the section “Fight Against Corruption”, calling on anyone with information about corrupt practices at the company, including any actions which had caused or could cause pecuniary damage, to report such information using the dedicated email address. The company promised to carry out an independent investigation and guaranteed that all reports would remain anonymous and confidential. As announced, the reports would be forwarded to the Internal Audit Unit, which was accountable only to the Board of Directors of the company. It was desirable to indicate a contact person and the preferred means of correspondence for any further enquiries. The information, if confirmed, would be sent to the relevant security team and the directorate of the company for appropriate measures to be taken. 7 .     On 26 March 2012 the applicant sent an unsigned report from his private email address to the dedicated email address in the announcement. 8 .     His report – which mentioned full names of the persons concerned – in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. [V.].B. was known in certain circles in the country for embezzlement of 10 million US dollars provided by Russia for the safe operation of the Armenian AEM, while he was Director General of the AAEM-Power Engineering International Corporation CJSC. This was covered by the Armenian mass media. According to a former MP of the Armenian Parliament, V.B. and his deputy, a certain M.I., a Georgian citizen, were involved in a transnational criminal group. The latter was suspected of being in contact with the foreign intelligence services in Georgia and Turkey. According to the same information, V.B. was suspected of stealing radioactive substances from AAEM with a view to selling [them]. 2. During his employment in the ENA’s Security Directorate, V.B. was able to form a group and use it to serve his own interests . This is evidenced by the decisions on structural changes in the Security Directorate [and] the dismissal of more than 16 employees of the Directorate on the initiative of V.B. on the fabricated pretext of reducing [the number of] positions and hiring his own people, including his relatives, in their place. The number of [employees in] the Directorate steadily increased after the above-mentioned dismissals due to the recruitment of new employees. On V.B.’s initiative, the Technical Control Department, which dealt with information security issues, was dissolved and instead the Department for the Protection of Interests, Rights and Legal Assistance was created, headed by V.B.’s cousin ... A.Kh., an employee of the Financial and Economic Department, which is responsible for the control of payments and transfers of goods and material values at the ENA, is V.B.’s cousin. The Head of the ENA’s Department for the Protection of Interests, B.A., and the former Head of the Financial and Economic Department, K.M., are cousins, and the clerk, G.T., is their relative. 3. Below are some facts that could indicate abuse of office by V.B. prompted by personal motives. They mainly refer to the period when V.B. was acting Security Director and cover a narrow field of the ENA’s economic activity. Other material is under review and will be made available to you once the work has been completed.   4. On 24 October 2007 contract no. A-1085/07 was signed between the ENA and Uniforma LLC in the amount of 3,263,400 [Armenian drams (AMD)] for the sewing of 110 winter uniforms for the company’s security guards. Clause 2.3 of the contract provided for a substantial down payment of 70% (the reasonable limit is no more than 30% of the contract price). However, the entire amount of AMD 3,263,400 was transferred to the account of Uniforma LLC. The contract did not specify the deadlines for fulfilment of the contractor’s obligations. The ENA’s Department for the Protection of Interests, headed by me, carried out an audit of the business reputation of the potential contractor. It was established that L.M., the Director of Uniforma LLC, was born in 1986, and that her mother, M.M., who was the unofficial head of the company, did not have a permanent place of residence and lived in Yerevan on a rental basis. Their own flat, situated at 45/20 Artashisyan Street, Yerevan, had been transferred to the ownership of the lessor to pay a debt. Uniforma LLC had no production base or staff. L.M. showed the inspectors of the Department a production workshop located in a rented basement, which at the time of the inspection contained only two old sewing machines, unfit for use. There was no three-phase power supply in the area and, according to the electronic customer database, the so-called workshop had not used electricity since 2006. Based on the audit results, a well-founded report was drawn up and provided to V.B., pointing to the inadmissibility of any transaction with Uniforma LLC. As an alternative to Uniforma, I proposed to V.B. the candidacy of the Kanaker Sewing Factory, which is known in the Republic for sewing unforms for the Ministry of Defence, law enforcement agencies and non-governmental guard services. However, my proposal was dismissed by V.B. without any valid explanation.   As expected, Uniforma LLC did not fulfil its contractual obligations. In this connection, I advised V.B. to report Uniforma LLC to the law enforcement authorities. However, V.B. delayed the resolution of the issue on the pretext that he was having preventive talks with the Director of Uniforma LLC in order to convince her to fulfil her contractual obligations. After my persistent demands, on 24 March 2008 the Security Directorate sent letter DBK-74 to the Yerevan police with a request for appropriate measures to be taken against Uniforma LLC. In July of the same year, the Investigative Department of the police decided to open a criminal case against Uniforma LLC under Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia (fraud). On 16.07.2008, having learnt of this from me, V.B. signed and sent letter DBK ‑ 204 to the Investigative Department of the police with a request to withdraw our complaint about Uniforma LLC. The police allowed the request. V.B.’s actions were prompted by the fact that in the event of a criminal case against L.M., the Director of Uniforma LLC, her mother, M.M., who was the de facto head of that company and had close relations with V.B., could testify against him that he had been an initiator of a fake contract. Despite the fact that evidence of the contractor’s actual intention to not fulfil its obligations had been unequivocally disclosed, V.B. did not prevent the real threat to the ENA’s economic security but, by abusing his position, fraudulently contributed to its materialisation. He prevented the detection of fraud committed against the ENA and the prosecution of those responsible. Later, the material was transferred to the legal partnership Ter-Tajatyan, Grigoryan and Vahanyan to recover the amount of AMD 3,263,400 through court proceedings. ENA’s loss in the amount of AMD 3,263,400 has not yet been recovered. 5. In 2007, through the mediation of V.B., H.A. was hired as Head of the Information and Analytical Department of the Security Directorate. Later, H.A.’s son-in-law, V.Ch. , was also hired as an expert in that Department . 6. [H.]A. was the founder of Sekans LLC, a contractor of our company. V.B. should have known about this because he was friends with him. Besides, Sekans LLC participated in and won tenders from the ENA, and V.B. was on the tenders board and lobbied for its interests. By hiring H.A., V.B. breached the instructions of the Security Department of the headquarters of INTER RAO ENA on excluding affiliation with contractors. ... Special attention should be paid to the fact that AMD 5 million was transferred to the account of Sekans LLC, more than the amount payable under contract no. А-552 dated [9 October 2006]. After V.B.’s business relations with Sekans LLC became the subject of discussion by the ENA, H.A. resigned. The latter refused to return to the ENA the additional amount paid over the value of the contract and announced the bankruptcy of Sekans LLC. The internal control service, managed by V.B., carried out the control of outgoing payments by accessing the accounting software complex from the personal computer of the employee responsible for this control, and the latter could overlook the transfer of the above-mentioned amount that did not correspond to the contract. Transactions with Sekans LLC were accompanied by fraud, as a result of which the ENA suffered losses. 7. In January 2007 operational information was received that S., the Director of the Ghars branch, of the ENA with V.B.’s support, had decided to purchase the two-storey administrative building of the branch at 1 Sharatalyan Street in Gyumri in order to convert it into a hotel. Upon verification of the above information, it was found that, indeed, a certain resident of Yerevan, G.M., had applied to the ENA requesting the removal and sale of the administrative building for AMD 5,300,00[0]. According to the official data of real estate agencies in Gyumri, the price of a one-room flat in the city centre during that period was AMD 4 to 5 million, that is, the price of a two-storey administrative building was equivalent to the price of a one-room flat. It is obvious that this transaction was not in the ENA’s economic interests. I informed V.B. of my awareness of the transaction, without hinting at his participation in it, and suggested that he take measures to annul it or, in the worst-case scenario, revise the prices. As justification, I pointed to the data on real estate prices in Gyumri. V.B. assured me that he would treat my proposal as he should. Later, I learned that the [Armenian] Public Services Regulatory Commission had satisfied the relevant request of the ENA. The renovated two-storey building was sold in good condition for AMD 5,300,000, not to G.M., but to a certain N.P., a resident of Yerevan, because G.M. had relinquished his right to purchase the administrative building. It turned out that N.P. was the wife of the Director of the Ghars branch, S. V.B. had all the powers to suspend the transaction during the examination of G.M.’s application on behalf of the c ompany’s Director General, or at least to revise the price of the building in order to increase it. However, V.B. did not do anything, because he was a participant in that shady deal and, prompted by selfish motives, was interested in its realisation to the detriment of the ENA’s economic interests. 8 . In May 2008, on the order of its Director S., 300 10kW insulators were released from the warehouse of the Ghars branch (the balance sheet value of one insulator is [AMD 25-35,000]) and sent by a private truck to the Aragatsotn region, where V.B.’s small hydroelectric station was being constructed. The branch director, S., had instructed the heads of 3-4 electricity networks of the branch (Akhuryan, Artik, Ashotsk, Amasia) to fill out false performance sheets for the installation of insulators. His illegal order had been carried out. However, in the logbook of the operational-dispatch service of the branch and electricity networks, no records were made of the disconnection of the 10kW lines on which the insulators were allegedly replaced. Without the disconnection of these lines, it was impossible to replace the old insulators with new ones under voltage. If we compare the performance sheets from May-November 2008 with the outage schedule for that period, we will get evidence of the theft of the insulators. In this instance, there is not only a simple theft of the ENA’s property by V.B. with the prior agreement of the branch director, but also the involvement of a number of employees of the branch in the commission of the crime.   In 2009 the small hydroelectric station, owned by V.B. and his brother, was put into operation by signing a contract with the ENA. V.B. and his brother are affiliated contractors and ultimate beneficiaries. V.B. holds an important position in the Security Directorate of the ENA CJSC, and his position is contrary to the spirit of the recent decisions of the President and Prime Minister of the Russian Federation on additional measures to combat corruption and abuses in the energy sector, which also fully refer to foreign assets. 9. Contracts were signed with ARSB ZVEZDA LLC on ‘Delivery, installation, assembly, programming, commissioning and regulation works and putting into operation the security system’:   - No. 82/07 dated 02.03.2007 with a total value of AMD 4,461,120; - No. 120/07 dated 05.03.2007 with a total value of AMD 2,960,000; - No. 142/07 dated 13.03.2007 with a total value of AMD 2,268,600.   According to the contracts, an amount equal to 50% of the value of each contract was transferred to the account of the contractor as a down payment. The agreements lacked objective justification for their necessity. In particular: - agreement no. Ф-398/07 dated 05.06.2007 to contract no. 82/07 from 02.03.2007, set the contract price equal to AMD 6,560,520; - agreement no. Ф -393/07 dated 05.06.2007 to contract no. 120/07 from 05.03.2007, set the contract price equal to AMD 4,378,800; - agreement no. Ф-397/07 dated 05.06.2007 to contract no. 142/07 from 13.03.2007, set the contract price equal to AMD 2,726,400. In the Armenian market, there are 5 firms specialising in the installation of technical means of security. According to my monitoring data, the prices of other firms providing similar services and works were much lower. In December 2008 I conducted monitoring of these firms to find out their price proposals for installing a barrier [similar to that] installed by ARSB ZVEZDA LLC for the ENA CJSC. Ellipse GA, AMD 1,000,000 (excluding VAT); DS systems, AMD 1,014,000 (excluding VAT); Security service, AMD 1,512,000 (excluding VAT); Microroll, AMD 898,000 (excluding VAT); ARSB ZVEZDA, AMD 2,890,000 (excluding VAT). The result does not call for comments; in any case, the price was inflated by the initiator of the transactions, a.k.a. V.B., in order to receive ‘kickbacks’. It should be noted that, based on technical parameters, the barrier installed by ARSB ZVEZDA did not outperform similar barriers proposed by other firms. Rather, it was the opposite. After its installation, the barrier did not work until April 2009 and we only signed the performance sheet in June 2009, after the serious defects had been eliminated. 10. In accordance with Directive no. DBK-26 of 10.02.2009, a committee composed of a number of employees of the Security and Control Directorate was formed for the inventory of property numbers (barcodes) and selector input system cards. I was appointed head of the committee. At the time of the inspection, it was revealed that as of 10.02.2009, according to a document signed by, among others, V.B., the ENA’s Information System Department had transferred 662,716 inventory numbers to the Security and Control Directorate. At the time of the inspection, the deficit of the inventory numbers was 54,034. The inspection of the Department revealed that the lost numbers had not been transferred to the Department by V.B. Besides, it was found out that V.B., by his unauthorised verbal instruction, had transferred the responsibility for the recording of property numbers and their provision to branches of the Technical Control (Provision of Information Security) Department, which contradicted Decree no. 6 of 02.10.2007 of Director General of the ENA on the instruction. I proposed to the Directorate to carry out inspection measures to establish the circumstances of the loss of property numbers and their location, but the proposal was refused. Later I found that V.B. had inserted an additional clause into the electronic version of the official instructions of the Head of the Technical Control Department, which stated among the duties of the head of the department the duty of control over the legal transfer of goods and material values, which implied the provision of barcodes to branch representatives. This responsibility had been assigned to the Financial and Economic Department of the Security Directorate. Therefore, V.B. had committed a falsification in order to avoid responsibility for the lack of property numbers and had shifted it to the head of the department. 11. At the end of 2006 a decision was made to separate the responsibilities of the ENA’s physical security facilities as a separate legal entity. The only bidder in the tender, Saiga private security company [PSC] had made a convincing bid and contracts were signed with it at different times in the amount of AMD 71,490,000 (А-802/07 dated 30.11.2007, А-407/07 dated 02.07.2008, А-1186/09 dated 02.11.2009). Staff of the ENA’s departmental guard [and] service dogs were transferred to Saiga PSC. Later, the company bought mobile phones for personal communication and 60 torches for the employees of the PSC. From 2008 until 2010 the above-mentioned fixed amount sometimes exceeded AMD   100 million for the provision of additional services. In order to make sure that V.B. received ‘kickbacks’ from Saiga PSC, it suffices to check the contracts signed with it from the perspective of the potential for corruption. As a proof of receiving ‘kickbacks’, one can cite the example of how V.B. misled the ENA’s Director General E.B. when providing information about the market prices of guard services in Yerevan. Below is an extract from the reference given to E.B. in February 2011: ‘One guard post of Saiga PSC costs our company about [AMD] 634,920, including VAT.   Our monitoring of the security services market has shown that in the absence of a law on private security and investigation services in the Republic, there is a monopoly of 2 ‑ 3 players in the market, including Saiga PSC and the State Guard Service Department of the Armenian police, which have the relevant licences, professional staff and logistical base. A comparative analysis of the costs of the physical guarding of the area through the installation of a guard post shows that the conditions of Saiga PSC are more acceptable for our company from an economic perspective and taking into account the quality point of the services provided. In particular: State Guard Service Department of the Armenian police: the cost of one round ‑ the ‑ clock guard post service is AMD 552,296 excluding VAT. Armobil PSC: the cost of one round-the-clock guard post service is AMD 620,000 excluding VAT. Rusal Armenal departmental security service: the cost of one round-the-clock guard post service is AMD 957,000.’ From this fragment of the text, it appears that there was no significant imbalance between the prices of the security services provided by the firms, with the exception of Rusal, which should not have been included in this list because it was not a security service provider. The lie was that the value of Saiga PSC’s services was reduced by [AMD] 30-40,000, and the services of the State Guard Service Department of the Armenian police were exaggerated by [AMD] 120,000, and that of Armobil PSC [by] AMD 180,000. In addition, no mention was made of the provision by the two organisations at their own expense of guards with uniforms, military and traumatic weapons, special personal protective gear, communication and night patrols with their own forces, which is also associated with high costs. V.B.’s misleading of the Director General was aimed at justifying the high costs of the guard service. 12. As of May 2011, 120 electricity meters of customers were stolen from the Abovyan electricity network of the Geghama branch of the ENA at different times (mainly in the previous 3 years) exceeding the total number of meters stolen from all branches in the previous 10 years). Three or four episodes were reported to the regional police department. The results of our studies and the police inspection gave us serious grounds to believe that the electricity meters were stolen by the electricians of the Abovyan electricity network in order to cover up the electricity thefts. In May 2011, at the time of the inspection of the warehouse of the Geghama branch in connection with the theft that had taken place, I found in one of the closed facilities a large number of electricity meters reset to zero with fresh State-standard stamps. [A photograph beneath showed the applicant in a room with a number of electricity meters]. I reported the find to V.B. and offered to make an inventory to determine their origin and search for the stolen electricity meters among them, as well as to send a summary report to the police on all cases of theft of electricity meters of customers of the Abovyan electricity network of the Geghama branch. V.B. agreed and promised to return to the matter later. Later I learned that that pile of electricity meters had been quickly removed from the premises of the branch. This only reinforced the view that V.B. was supporting the Geghama branch, and not without selfish considerations. ... 13. In 2007 the Security Directorate had at its disposal accurate information about the mass overcharging of electricity customers of the Echmiadzin electricity network. At that time, by order of the Director General of the company, the responsibility for the sale of electricity of the Echmiadzin electricity network was placed on the ENA’s sales director, that is, he was personally responsible for the overcharges. On that occasion, reports addressed to the Director General were prepared. The manager’s attention was drawn to the fact that, in certain circumstances, the dissatisfaction of those customers whose electricity bills were increased could turn into mass protests if no measures were taken to correct the situation. In order to protect the Sales Director from responsibility, V.B. did not report this information to the Director General. In April 2011 the situation escalated dramatically. Customers in the village of Guy made public complaints against the company, which had a widespread reaction in society and undermined the company’s reputation. V.B.’s inactivity was explained by the fact that he had hired his son – a student at the time – in the Sales Department. It should be noted that since 2008, the Directorate has stopped carrying out permanent work to detect and prevent electricity thefts. V.B. blocked the implementation of two orders of the Director General relating to the monitoring of energy-consuming facilities and the drawing up of a profile of the facility according to the realisation of the site. These measures helped to effectively monitor the consumption and timely prevention of electricity thefts. 14. On 3 August 2009 the ENA transferred about AMD 75-80 million to the account of the Manas company, and on 5 August 2009 it signed contract A-756 with the same company on construction work at 9 Grigor Lusavorich [Street], Yerevan. However, the fact is that at the time the contract was signed, the work had already been completed by a different company (Renko, I’m not sure). The security service did not record this and the threat to the economic security of the company, either at the stage of controlling the payment orders, during the negotiation of the transaction or during the tendering process. It is not the result of V.B.’s immaturity, but of his mingling with controlled units and, as a result, the impossibility of an adequate response to the threat. Perhaps the most striking assessment of the activities of the Security and Control Directorate is the results of the continuous inspections by the Investigative Department of the Armenian State Revenue Committee at the ENA CJSC and the prospect of a fine in the amount of AMD 10 billion. Please check the facts stated and inform me of the results. If necessary, I’ll do my best to help you. Enc.: three files ” 9.     On 11 July 2012 the Head of Economic Security and Administration of Internal Security Directorate of the company, Y.M., held a meeting with the applicant and showed him the report, asking him whether he had written it. After the applicant confirmed that he had, Y.M. asked him to sign a copy of it, which the applicant did. 10.     On 18 July 2012 the applicant’s report was forwarded, marked “confidential”, to the Head of the ENA’s Security and Control Directorate, G.Ma., who was asked to verify the information. The following day G.Ma. presented the applicant’s report to V.B., who was asked to provide an explanation. 11 .     According to an internal investigation carried out at the ENA (in so far as summarised in the decisions of the domestic courts), H.A., the Head of the Information and Analytical Department of the Security Directorate, refuted statement no. 5. In particular, when he had been hired as an expert at the ENA, V.Ch. had not yet been his son-in-law. Moreover, as regards statement no. 6, V.B. had not been on the tenders board at the material time and, even if that had been the case, he would not have been able to influence its decision. As to statement no. 8, H.A. admitted that insulators had been taken from the Ghars branch and sent to the village of Aragats, where a small hydroelectric station was being constructed, of which he was a co-founder, but V.B. had had nothing to do with that station. As to the amount of AMD   4,978,099 mistakenly transferred to the account of Sekans LLC by the ENA’s Financial and Economic Department, the latter had filed a claim against Sekans LLC, and in 2009 the court had made a decision on the compensation of the above-mentioned amount. The amount had to be returned to the ENA, and failure to do so had led to the bankruptcy of Sekans LLC. 12 .     Moreover, the internal investigation established that the information provided by the applicant about market prices had been incorrect. Furthermore, as regards statement no. 7, the Director of the Ghars branch had asked the ENA to sell the two-storey building in Gyumri to N.P. because a certain M.M. had refused to buy it, and the Public Services Regulatory Commission had granted the ENA’s request to sell it. In addition, as regards statement no. 11, the Director of Saiga PSC informed an ENA official that the amount of money for services provided to the ENA had never exceeded AMD 100 million, as alleged by the applicant. Additional services had been provided for up to AMD 78 million. 13 .     Two other ENA officials dismissed statement no. 12 as untrue. One of them, the Director of the Geghama branch, submitted that the allegedly stolen electricity meters shown on the photograph in the applicant’s report had been single-phase induction type energy meters, which had been replaced by electronic meters. In particular, a large number of single-phase induction type energy meters had been submitted to the laboratory of the Geghama branch for revamping. 14.     On 16 August 2012 V.B. brought proceedings against the applicant for insult and defamation, seeking an apology and compensation. 15.     On 15 July 2013 the Shirak Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) dismissed V.B.’s claim. The court held that the applicant’s statements were not “public” within the meaning of Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 24 below), as they had been submitted in strict confidence. 16.     On 12 August 2013 V.B. lodged an appeal. 17 .     On 20 November 2013 the Civil Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 15 July 2013 and remitted the case on the grounds that the Regional Court had misinterpreted what constituted a “public statement”. Referring to decisions by the Court of Cassation taken in 2012 (see paragraph   26 below), it held that the term “third person” meant a person to whom information was provided other than the claimant or respondent, whereas the Regional Court had not considered Y.M. to be a “third person”. An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant against that judgment was declared inadmissible by the Court of Cassation on 15 January 2014. 18 .     On 3 March 2015, during the second round of the proceedings, the Regional Court partly allowed V.B.’s claim. It held that the applicant’s report constituted a public statement within the meaning of Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code. In particular, he had submitted his report five months after the termination of his contract and, by submitting his report to Y.M., he had made his statements in public, that is, to a person other than the defamer and the defamed. In addition, a committee had been set up to verify his submissions and its members had also become aware of the content of the report. Therefore, the applicant had shared his report with one “third person”, Y.M. and had thus failed to take adequate measures to ensure the confidentiality of the information so that it did not become available to others. It also did not admit in evidence the company’s online announcement because it had been submitted as a screenshot copy. The Regional Court then referred to the results of the internal investigation, which had established that the information contained in the applicant’s report were not truthful (see paragraphs 11-13 above). The court thus found that statement no. 1 constituted an insult because it had had no factual basis. As regards the other statements (in italics), which the applicant had failed to prove, they had been defamatory, debasing and insulting to V.B.’s honour, dignity and business reputation. In particular, the applicant had failed to prove that he had taken all measures to ensure the confidentiality of his report, that his actions had been aimed at investigating, exposing and preventing corruption at the ENA, and that he had not intended to defame V.B. In particular, he had no longer worked at the ENA and the verification of those facts had not been within his remit. The applicant’s argument that he had not intended to defame V.B. was untrue because he had failed to prove the veracity of his statements. In any event, even if he had not had such an intention, he had not shown good faith in presenting his value judgments in relation to the information imparted. The court noted, however, that his statements could not be considered value judgments because they had had no factual basis. Besides, he had failed to prove that his statements had been motivated by an overriding public interest. In particular, the duty to impart information on areas or issues of public interest was placed upon the mass media and not on a private individual. The applicant was ordered to make a public apology “in the same manner as [he] had published the [impugned statements]” and to pay AMD   2,000,000 in compensation for insult and defamation. He was further ordered to pay legal and other costs in the amount of AMD 492,128. 19 .     On 25 March 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal, alleging a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, relying, inter alia , on Zakharov v. Russia (no. 14881/03, 5 October 2006) and Kazakov v. Russia (no. 1758/02, 18   December 2008). In particular, he contested that his statements had been made in public, but that he had submitted his report using his private email and in strict confidence, as assured by the company, whereas the Regional Court took no heed of that fact and dismissed the company’s online announcement as inadmissible (see paragraph 18 above). Furthermore, it had not taken heed of the fact that he had filed his report in response to the company’s call to report corrupt activities. His aim had been to expose and have investigated what he had considered to be corruption at the ENA, a matter of public interest. He had had no opportunity to verify his statements other than by bringing them to the attention of the claimant’s hierarchy. As regards his first statement, he had simply reported what he had come across in the local media. However, the court rejected the printouts of the relevant news articles as they had not been original documents. Also, the ENA had refused to submit to the court the three files attached to his report, which represented analyses drawn up upon official documents of the ENA and were capable of proving the veracity of his allegations. The Regional Court had also failed to obtain that evidence from the ENA through judicial enforcement services. Moreover, in order to substantiate the statements made in his report, he had requested the Regional Court to require the ENA to submit certain pieces of evidence, but the court had not even considered his request. It had thus deprived him of any opportunity to present his defence. Lastly, he argued that the sanction imposed on him by the court was disproportionate, given that neither he nor his wife were employed and the only way he could pay the damages would be to sell their flat. 20 .     On 19 June 2015 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the Regional Court. The appellate court held, inter alia , that the fact that the applicant had submitted his report in strict confidence and to a person responsible for dealing with it had no bearing on the determination of the case given that it had been submitted to a “third person”, namely Y.M. Moreover, the applicant had failed to cite the source of his information when filing his report, arguing that he had reported what he had come across in the news, and that no proof had been submitted in support of his statements. As regards the amount of compensation, the court considered it to be fair and not financially burdensome for the applicant. 21.     On 20 July 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was declared inadmissible by the Court of Cassation on 19 August 2015. A copy of that decision was served on him on 4 September 2015. 22 .     On 29 August 2016 an official of the Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Acts (“the DEJA”) decided to seize the applicant’s car. In order to recover the amount of damages imposed on the applicant by the Regional Court, the relevant officials of the DEJA decided on 16 February 2017 and 16 October 2018 respectively, that the applicant’s car and flat be sold by public auction. The car had an estimated value of AMD 1,340,000 and the starting price was set at AMD 1,005,000. As regards the flat, it had an estimated value of AMD 5,000,000 and the starting price was set at AMD   3,750,000. No information was provided whether the DEJA sold the applicant’s car and flat. 23 .     The applicant submitted that the alleged corruption at the ENA had resulted in electricity price hike in 2015, which triggered mass protests in the Armenian capital. The Government did not contest these allegations. RELEVANT National and international LEGAL FRAMEWORK Relevant domestic law and practice Civil Code (1999, as in force at the material time) 24 .     Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code provides that a person whose honour, dignity or business reputation has been tarnished through insult or defamation can bring court proceedings against the person who made the insulting or defamatory statement. An insult is a public statement made through words, images, sounds, signs or other means with the aim of tarnishing someone’s honour, dignity or business reputation. A public statement may not be considered an insult if it is based on precise facts (except congenital defects) or pursues an overriding public interest. Defamation is a public statement of fact about a person which does not correspond to reality and tarnishes his or her honour, dignity or business reputation. In cases of defamation, the burden of proof in respect of the existence or absence of the relevant facts is on the defendant. It shifts to the claimant if presenting such proof requires the defendant to undertake unreasonable actions or efforts, whereas the claimant possesses the necessary evidence. A person is exempt from liability for defamation or insult if the statements of fact made or presented by him or her are a verbatim or bona fide reproduction of information disseminated by a media outlet or information contained in a public speech, official documents, other mass media or any creative work, and he or she makes reference to the source (that is to say, the author). Law on the whistle-blowing system (“the Whistle-blowing Act”, in force since 2017) 25 .     Section 2(1)(1) defines whistle-blowing as reporting, in writing or verbally, to a competent person or body under the Act, of information about a case of corruption or a conflict of interest or a violation of rules of ethics or conditions of incompatibility or other restrictions or breaches related to the declaration of revenue, or any other damage or threat of damage to the public interest in State or local self-governing bodies, State institutions and organisations, as well as in organisations of public importance. Section   2(1)(2) defines a whistle-blower as a natural or legal person who, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act, discloses in good faith information about a case of corruption or a conflict of interest or a violation of rules of ethics or conditions of incompatibility or other restrictions or breaches related to the declaration of revenue, or any other damage or threat of damage to the public interest, involving an official, an institution, an organisation or an employee of the organisation with whom he or she is or has been in an employment, civil, administrative or other work-based relationship, or to whom he or she has applied for the purpose of providing services, or who has been mistakenly perceived as a whistle-blower. Decisions of the Court of Cassation of 27 April 2012 (nos.   LD/0749/02/10 and EKD/2293/02/10) 26 .     In the above decisions the Court of Cassation interpreted the term “public statement” contained in