CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20314/18 Vilen GAYFEJYAN against Armenia lodged on 17 April 2018 communicated on 12 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression arising from a court order obliging him, as the host of a satirical YouTube program, to issue a public apology for allegedly offending two police officers during an episode that addressed two widely publicised incidents involving the use of force by police against peaceful protesters. On 24 May 2015 an episode of a satirical program was posted on YouTube. In that episode, the applicant, appearing in an outfit resembling a police uniform, presented short video clips showing police officers using force against peaceful protesters during two widely publicised incidents, and made various comments in that context. On 1 June 2015 the Police as an institution and two individual police officers lodged civil claims with the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”), alleging that the applicant had offended them and seeking an order obliging him to issue a public apology and to pay compensation. By a judgment of 14 March 2017, the District Court dismissed the claim brought by the Police as an institution but granted, in part, the claims of the two individual police officers, obliging the applicant to issue a public apology for offending them while dismissing their claims for compensation. The court found that the two police officers (the plaintiffs) appeared in the short video clips shown in the episode and that the applicant’s comments had offended them. The judgment was upheld on appeal. The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law, which the Court of Cassation declared inadmissible for lack of merit on 4 October 2017. The decision was served on the applicant on 17 October 2017. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the court order violated his right to freedom of expression. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Savva Terentyev v. Russia , no. 10692/09, §§ 61-64 and 68, 28 August 2018; Patrício Monteiro Telo de Abreu v. Portugal , no. 42713/15, §§ 35-38 and 40, 7 June 2022; and Gaspari v. Armenia (no. 2) , no. 67783/13, §§ 24-26, 11 July 2023)?   The Government are requested to clarify on what basis the domestic courts established that the two police officers (the plaintiffs) appeared in the short video clips shown in the YouTube program hosted by the applicant.