CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juillet 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 29 August 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 10273/17 HRAPARAK ORATERT LTD and Susanna SIMONYAN against Armenia lodged on 22 January 2017 communicated on 18 July 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant company, which publishes a newspaper and runs a news website, and its journalist, Ms Simonyan, were sued for libel by Ms R. – who was the wife of the then Minister of Defence and, at the material time, worked as an aide to the Minister of Health – because of an article written by Ms   Simonyan and published in both media outlets alleging that Ms R. had been responsible for a fatal car accident that had taken place many years before. On 7 December 2015 the first-instance court found the offending passage of the article libellous, and ordered the applicants to publish a retraction in both media outlets, as well as to remove the online article. The applicants appealed against the above judgment submitting that: (1)   the penalty in the form of the removal of the online article was not prescribed by law because it was not included in the exhaustive list of measures to be ordered in case of libellous statements; (2) the said measure was also disproportionate because it was made in respect of the entire piece, whereas only one passage in it had been found libellous; and (3) that the contested judgment amounted to an unnecessary interference with their right to freedom of expression. The higher judicial instances dismissed the applicants’ appeals and the final decision was served on them on 22 July 2016. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?