FACTS

On January 13, 2025, the RA State Supervision Service (hereinafter referred to as the Service) filed a lawsuit with the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan against Susanna Muradyan and the Investigative Journalists NGO. The plaintiff claimed that the statements made publicly by the defendants tarnished the good reputation and public standing of the Service (court case No. ED2/0228/02/25). Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that on December 25, 2024, the defendant organization had published an article on its website titled “The State Supervision Service Carried Out a Deficient Inspection at “Armenia” Medical Center and Covered Up Violations,” which contained defamatory statements based on information provided by Susanna Muradyan, a former employee of the institution. Although the Service demanded a refutation, on December 31, 2024, the defendant organization published another article titled “Hetq’s Response to the Demand by the SSS for a Refutation,” in which they stated that they were not going to issue a refutation, arguing that there was nothing to refute.

During the trial, the parties presented arguments and facts in support of their respective positions. The plaintiff claimed that the NGO’s media had published untrue data, particularly alleging that the Service had covered up the real results of the inspection conducted at the medical center. The defendant, in turn, stated that all factual data and assessments had been presented in good faith and in a balanced manner, noting that the publication concerned an issue of public importance.

On December 19, 2025, the court issued a ruling rejecting the lawsuit in its entirety. The court found that the Service could not be considered a plaintiff in insult and defamation cases, since the legal concepts of honor, dignity or business reputation are attributed only to private individuals and legal entities, whereas the Service is a state body. The court relied on the legal positions set out in the Constitutional Court’s decision DCC-997 and the ruling of the Court of Cassation in civil case No. LD/0749/02/10 dated April 27, 2012, which addressed the relevant issue.

The Service challenged the court’s verdict before the Civil Court of Appeal. On April 3, 2026, the appellate court rejected the appeal in its entirety. No cassation appeal was filed by either party, and as a result, the verdict entered into force and became final.

CONCLUSION

In its Expert Opinion No. 67, the Information Disputes Council addressed the issue of the inadmissibility of public service bodies initiating insult and defamation lawsuits in the context of a lawsuit filed by a penitentiary institution against a media outlet. The IDC reiterates its position that state bodies should refrain from filing insult and defamation lawsuits against media and journalists.

This approach is supported by three principles. First, insult and/or defamation lawsuits and proceedings against media have a negative impact on the freedom to disseminate information and ideas, as well as on the societal interest in covering and debating on matters of public importance. Second, in a democracy, citizens should be free to criticize public bodies and officials. The latter, in turn, should be open to such criticism, display tolerance and refrain from seeking legal protection in civil courts on the grounds of insult or defamation. Third, when state bodies bring such cases, they use public resources in the pursuit of their own interests, which cannot be directed toward shielding their activities from criticism, especially in matters of public importance, as is the case in the current litigation. These principles are enshrined in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (see, for example, OOO MEMO v. Russia, Application No. 2840/10, ECHR, 15/03/2022, paragraphs 44-47). They have also been referenced by the RA Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation in their aforementioned decisions, which were cited in the judicial act rendered in the present case.

To summarize the aforementioned, the IDC concludes that the lawsuit filed by the State Supervision Service against the Investigative Journalists NGO was manifestly unfounded. The IDC further observes that it would have been appropriate for the court to reject the lawsuit at the very beginning of the trial, thereby also saving unnecessary waste of resources. The IDC expresses its hope that public (state) bodies and their officials will take into consideration the above-mentioned principles inherent in a democratic society, will refrain from initiating lawsuits on the grounds of insult and defamation, and will strive to resolve any arising issues through out-of-court means.

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