FACTS

On February 13, 2026, attorney Karen Tonoyan applied to the Information Disputes Council, requesting an expert opinion on court case No. ED2/11281/02/25, Nork-Marash Medical Center and its doctors v. Social Media Ltd., the founder of mamul.am news website, filed with the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan. He stated that he is acting as the legal representative of the plaintiffs.

As established by the facts in this case, in April 2025, a woman died following surgery at Nork-Marash Medical Center. Her son, Sevak Melikyan, who serves as the director and owner of Social Media Ltd., submitted to the Medical Center a written note titled “Pre-Trial Demand Letter.” In it, he demanded that the MC director terminate the doctors’ employment contracts, publicly admit that their actions had caused the death, and issue an apology. He further demanded the return of payments made for the examinations and surgery, along with compensation for funeral expenses in the amount of 2,800,000 drams and moral damages totaling 10,000,000 drams. The head of the Medical Center rejected the demand. Subsequently, 12 articles containing serious allegations against the doctors of the Medical Center were published on mamul.am. The pieces can be accessed via the following links, arranged according to their publication dates: 27.05.2025, 30.05.2025, 09.06.2025, 16․06․2025, 20.06.2025, 23.06.2025, 27.06.2025, 07.07.2025, 28.07.2025, 19.08.2025, 26.08.2025, 22.09.2025.

 All of the above-mentioned articles contained the following notice: “ATTENTION: If you (or your relatives) have also been affected by the actions of the above-mentioned doctors or other employees of the Medical Center, you may contact the editorial office at 010 55 20 59 or send information (including recordings, videos, etc.) to [email protected] or via our Facebook page. The editorial office guarantees confidentiality for all individuals providing information.”

Under these publications, positive user comments regarding the MC and its staff were removed, while only negative comments were retained.

The plaintiffs requested that the court oblige the defendant to publish a refutation in relation to all 12 articles and pay 500 thousand drams in compensation for each piece.

In the course of the trial, the plaintiffs’ representative filed a motion to apply a measure to secure the claim, asking the court to oblige Social Media Ltd. to remove the controversial articles from all of its platforms (websites, social media pages, video-hosting services, etc.) until the final judicial act is released. The court rejected this motion. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Civil Court of Appeal, which also rejected the appeal. The trial in the first instance court is still ongoing.

 CONCLUSION

Under paragraph 3 of Article 1087.1 of the RA Civil Code, defamation is defined as the public presentation of statements of fact about an individual that are untrue and tarnish their honor, dignity or business reputation. In its interpretation of this provision, the RA Court of Cassation has highlighted that for an expression to qualify as defamation, the following four conditions must be present simultaneously:

1) the statement must relate to a fact (statement of fact),

2) the statement must be communicated publicly,

3) the statement must tarnish the individual’s honor, dignity or business reputation,

4) the statement must be untrue.

A statement about a fact includes specific and clear information relating to a particular action or inaction by an individual. The legal meaning of the term “statement of fact” aligns with the concept of an “accurate fact” contained in paragraph 2(2) of Article 1087.1, which, according to the Court of Cassation, encompasses facts “which are substantiated by evidence at the time the information is published or constitute well-known facts that do not require proof”.[1]

In this case, all twelve disputed publications contained factual statements alleging that the plaintiffs had failed to properly perform their professional duties, had intentionally failed to provide medical care, had not performed the required surgery, and had “refused hospitalization” to the patient. In other words, these publications attributed specific facts, actions, and inaction to the plaintiffs. While in some cases value judgments were also used, each of the pieces, overall, contained statements of fact. Accordingly, the IDC concludes that the first prerequisite for defamation is present, namely that the disputed expressions concern statements of fact.

The next element, namely the public nature of the statement, is determined based on the criterion established by the Court of Cassation, which provides that a statement is deemed public if it is made in the presence of at least one third party or by making him/her aware of it.[2] Judicial practice has further developed the approach that expressions disseminated on the Internet “in a manner accessible to everyone” are inherently public.[3] Observing that the disputed pieces were published on a news website, the IDC considers their public nature to be indisputable.

The third condition of defamation, namely the tarnishing nature of expressions, is determined through objective criteria, regardless of the individual’s subjective perceptions. On the basis of the positions expressed by the Court of Cassation and through judicial practice, an approach has been developed whereby statements are considered tarnishing in nature when they attribute to an individual acts or conduct that constitute a criminal offense or a misdemeanor, reflect unfair behavior that contradicts the ethical requirements in personal, public or political life, or constitute violations of good faith in economic or entrepreneurial activities, and established business practices, which, in addition to being untrue, also humiliate and belittle an individual’s honor, dignity or business reputation.[4] According to another interpretation, an expression is considered tarnishing in nature, if in the view of members of society, it belittles the merits of an individual in public, subjects them to ridicule, is capable of turning them into an object of hatred or contempt, or causes an individual to feel shame or leads others to avoid them.[5]

The contested publications attributed to the plaintiffs acts that entail criminal liability, including allegations that the medical staff performed life-endangering actions and demonstrated inaction (articles 1 and 6), refused to provide medical care (articles 2 and 4), that the doctors exhibited professional negligence (articles 3, 11, and 12), and that a criminal case was initiated against the plaintiffs, and they were accused of criminal acts such as the embezzlement of public funds on a particularly large scale (articles 1, 5, 7, 8, and 9). Thus, the acts attributed to the plaintiffs in these publications tarnish the dignity and reputation of an individual under paragraph 3 of article 1087.1 of the Civil Code.

As for the fourth prerequisite of defamation, namely the untruthfulness of the disputed statements, this is an evaluative issue that depends on whether the defendant will succeed in proving their accuracy and veracity during the proceedings. According to paragraph 6 of Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code, the defendant bears the burden of proving the truthfulness of the statements they have made. Should the defendant fail to prove that, the statements will be regarded as defamatory, leading to corresponding legal consequences.

With regard to the remedies sought by the plaintiffs, specifically the publication of a refutation in respect of each article and compensation in the amount of 500 thousand drams per article, the IDC urges a substantial reduction of monetary claim, since the total sum of 6 million drams may become a disproportionately heavy burden for the media. Added to that, judicial practice has developed an important and positive approach under which monetary claims reaching such a high threshold are either sharply reduced or rejected altogether.

The IDC also finds that the decisions of both the court of first instance and the Civil Court of Appeal to reject the motion to apply a measure to secure the claim were based solely on the argument that it had not been substantiated that the non-application of such a measure would make the enforcement of the future judgment impossible. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs had put forward a different justification, namely that, if the controversial articles were to remain published, they would continue to suffer significant damage, in accordance with Article 128(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. In fact, the courts referred to a ground that had not been presented by the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the decisions of both courts are unlawful and arbitrary, and the IDC expresses the hope that the approach to this issue will be reconsidered in the subsequent stages of the trial.

In the present dispute, the IDC has also noted issues related to violations of journalistic ethics and has referred the matter to Media Ethics Observatory for the expression of its position in this regard.

Information Disputes Council

Shushan Doydoyan (IDC Secretary), President of Freedom of Information Center

Boris Navasardian, Honorary President of Yerevan Press Club

Aram Abrahamyan, Chief Editor of “Aravot” Daily

Ashot Melikyan, Chairman of Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression

Ara Ghazaryan, Director of “Ara Ghazaryan” Law Firm

Olga Safaryan, Lawyer

[1] Court of Cassation decision in civil case No. ED/26070/02/19 regarding Sona Aghekyan, dated March 10, 2023, page 11, paragraph 2

[2] Court of Cassation decision of April 12, 2012 in civil case No. LD/0749/02/10 regarding Boris Ashrafyan

[3] Ruling of the Court of General Jurisdiction of Ajapnyak and Davitashen Administrative Districts in civil case No. EADD/0074/02/12, Page 8, paragraph 2

[4] Court of Cassation decision in civil case No. LD/0749/02/10 regarding Boris Ashrafyan, page 10, last paragraph

[5] Court of Cassation decision in civil case No. AVD/0179/02/13 regarding Anik Davtyan, dated May 8, 2014, Page 9, paragraph 4