CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s7CD087BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sE796CEF6 { width:21.54pt; display:inline-block } .sA3C3DAA0 { width:134.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION CASE OF POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 37712/13)             JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 20 January 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Poghosyan v. Armenia (request for revision of the judgment of 26 March 2024), The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović, President ,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges , and Valentin Nicoleascu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 16 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 37712/13) 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”) on 3 June 2013 by an Armenian national, Ms   Tamara   Poghosyan (“the applicant”). 2.     In a judgment delivered on 26 March 2024, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of defamation proceedings against the applicant. It also decided to award her 1,200   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 986 for costs and expenses and dismissed the remainder of her claim for just satisfaction. 3 .     On 2 July 2024 the Government informed the Court that, during the execution of the judgment, they had learned that Ms Poghosyan had died on 28   August 2018 – that is after the final exchange of observations on 24   October 2017 – and that she had no heirs. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court and asked the Court to declare the case inadmissible for abuse of right of individual application or strike it out of the list of cases. 4.     On 3 September 2024 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant’s representative six weeks in which to submit any observations. No reply followed. THE LAW THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 5.     The Government requested revision of the judgment of 26   March 2024, which they had been unable to execute because Ms Poghosyan had died before the judgment had been adopted. 6.     The applicant’s representative made no observations on the request for revision. 7.     The Court considers that the judgment of 26 March 2024 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 § 1 of the Rules of Court, which provides as follows: “A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court, within a period of six months after that party acquired knowledge of the fact, to revise that judgment. ...” 8.     In the present case, the Court had not been informed of the applicant’s death which constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1. Nor can this fact be reasonably assumed to have been known by the Government before they started the execution of the original judgment. They filed a request for revision of the judgment on 2 July 2024 (see paragraph 3 above), that is within the time ‑ limit provided for by Rule 80. The Court therefore accepts the Government’s request for revision of the judgment of 26 March 2024. 9.     The Court further recalls that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed a wish to pursue the application (see, among many other authorities, Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic (revision), no.   23944/04, § 10, 20 June 2013, and Vlad and Others v. Romania (revision), nos.   40756/06 and 2 others, § 9, 15 October 2024). It moreover finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the application. 10.     Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to revise its judgment of 26 March 2024 in the case of Poghosyan v.   Armenia ; and, accordingly, Decides to strike application no. 37712/13 out of its list of cases. Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 January 2026, pursuant to Rule   77 §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Valentin Nicolescu   Faris Vehabović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President