An employee from Armenia’s Compulsory Enforcement Service of Judicial Acts (CES) paid a visit yesterday to the editorial offices of the daily newspaper Hraparak.

The official stated that a freeze of 3 million AMD was being placed on the property owned by Hraparak Ltd and that the paper would be prohibited from publishing any information pertaining to the dispute in the civil case until a final decision had been reached.

This came as a surprise to the company since no one at the editorial office knew what case the official was referring to or who had taken them to civil court, why, and what their demands were.

Armineh Ohanyan, the paper’s chief editor told Hetq that she hadn’t received any decision from Judge Karineh Petrosyan of the Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative District Court regarding either the freezing of assets or the ban of publishing information.

“First of all, we don’t know what dispute is being referred to. I have received no lawsuit documentation or the judge’s decision. The CES employee just shows up and says he’s brought some papers pertaining to you that you must sign and then I will place a freeze on your assets and rights,” says Armineh Ohanyan.

The paper’s editorial office can only assume who has taken them to court – Misak Martirosyan, Chief of the Judicial Department.

Recently, Hraparak published a letter, according to which, a group of Justice Department employees had written about what was going on with the Department and had complained about the President of the Court of Cassation and head of the Department. The letter was sent to the General Prosecutor and the Ministry of Justice.

The General Prosecutor initialled the letter and forwarded it to Department 6, which combats organized crime since it contained criminal references and an investigation is now underway.

Hraparak had gotten hold of the letter and published it for its readers.

The letter states that: “Under the leadership of Judicial Department head Misak Martirosyan and under the top level sponsorship of Aram Mkrtoumyan, the system is headed to final collapse. What is occurring in the Judicial Department resembles a structure working via a totalitarian regime that is directly governed by Misak Martirosyan, who was dismissed for bribery from the Prosecutor’s office. During the tenure of Martirosyan, judicial employees called the Department a “Misaknots” (Misak’s Place), since he was the only one making decisions there.”

The Hraparak editor says that when she asked the CES employee what was meant by the ban on spreading information, he answered that “you are not to publish articles.”

“I asked if I could do interviews or press conferences. He answered, ‘probably not.’ Of course, he was correct since the judge wrote a pretty vague decision,” says the Hraparak editor and adds, “So there wasn’t one literate person in the entire system to tell the judge he was doing something that contradicted the Constitution? It is the Constitution that makes a decision regarding the dissemination of information and not the respected judge.”

Armineh Ohanyan also asked the CES employee what were the risks if she didn’t abide by the decision.

He answered that the CES laws had been changed and were much stricter in terms of non-compliance and criminal charges, with up to two year’s imprisonment, awaited those who didn’t comply.

“Can you imagine it? If I publish anything on the subject they could criminally charge me and jail me,” says Ohanyan.

According to Armineh Ohanyan, the lawsuit was sent to the courts on August 31. The court   accepted the suit and a case was launched, immediately followed by a decision to freeze assets.

The plaintiff did not wait for the judge’s decision to reach the CES through official channels. They immediately petitioned the court, obtained the decision and took it to the CES.

“The postal service hasn’t yet delivered the lawsuit papers but the CES has already initiated execution of the court decision,” says the editor.

The editor says they will carry out the decision since if they don’t, they would either be forced to leave the country or work in anarchy.

“OK, I won’t talk about this dispute. I will not publish anything about the Judicial Department or its head. But they will not ban me from speaking about the judge’s illegal decision or publishing stuff about the judicial violations. In the end, they have prohibited me, but have they banned all the media outlets? They will publish, right? They shut my mouth, but what about the other papers. The judge should have passed a decision, right from the start, banning all the media from publishing information in general. It would have been the only way,” says Ohanyan.

Hetq wanted to find out from Judge Karen Petrosyan, who made the decision, why the CES launched the process before Hraparak was sent his decision and why the paper, the defendant in the case, hadn’t even received the lawsuit in order to understand the nature of the dispute.

“All that’s required is a mastery of Article 95 of the civil court procedure. I will not answer any other question. I provide an explanation in my verdicts. Other than this, I cannot say more,” Judge Petrosyan said and hung up the phone.

The article referred to by the judge has nothing to do with the question we raised. The article in question defines the timeframe in which a defendant must reply to a lawsuit and the procedure to be followed. Given that the defendant never received the lawsuit in the first place, it’s pointless to even speak about replying to it.

In the case of Observer and Guardian v the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights found that ‘the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest’.

The another case before the ECtHR – The Sunday Times v the United Kingdom (1979, Application No. 6538/74) – the Court held that the CoE Member States enjoy a margin of appreciation to determine if restrictions on freedom of expression are necessary. This margin of appreciation is different depending on the ‘aim pursued’: as to issued concerning the maintenance of the authority of the judiciary, this margin of appreciation is narrower than the margin of appreciation which has to be allowed to them in relation to issues concerning the protection of morals.

Apart from this the ECtHR stated that ‘The phrase "authority of the judiciary" includes, in particular, the notion that the courts are, and are accepted by the public at large as being, the proper forum for the ascertainment of legal rights and obligations and the settlement of disputes relative thereto; further, that the public at large have respect for and confidence in the courts’ capacity to fulfil that function’.

The ECtHR considered that the restraint in the above case was based on the following grounds:

-          while prejudging the issue of negligence, the article would lead to contempt of the processes of law or would be an interference with the administration of justice;

-          the article was such as to spark a wide-scale discussion on the company in the context of the particular circumstances of the case and objections to the discussion would be that it would obstruct the right of the plaintiffs to rely on the court;

-          there would be huge pressure on the company as a result of the article leading to a biased opinion on the matters examined during the trial while the law on contempt intends to prevent any interference with the right of access to justice;

-          any biased opinion by the press would spark reaction of parties which would mean ‘justice by newspapers,’ which is incompatible with the proper administration of justice;

-          courts are under a duty to protect the parties from biased opinions which includes protection from pre-trial publicity.