Today on November 8, the court of First Instance of the administrative districts Kentron and Nork Marash changed its decision on fund seizure of "Hraparak" daily with the decision of property seizure. The editorial of the newspaper is no longer surprised at the unprecedented decisions and their revisions.
Yesterday on November 7, judge Gagik Khandanyan made a decision to put seizure on funds of the newspaper, since lawyer Arthur Grigoryan was offended by the comments placed under the article made by two readers of the webpage of the newspaper www.hraparak.am. The comments were placed in August. The lawyer demands 18 million drams as a compensation for insulting his honor and dignity.
One of the comments said that because of Arthur Grigoryan, he (the author of the comment) lost the right to appeal because of delaying his complaint. Another comment said that the lawyer took 600.000 drams from him and tried to solve his problem through motions.
These comments appeared in the "Hraparak" newspaper only after the lawyer filed a lawsuit. "Hraparak" newspaper applied to court with motion to change the type of seizure, which despite the objections of the plaintiff, was satisfied with the aim of not hampering the work of the newspaper and the freedom of speech. This is already the fifth trial against "Hraparak" newspaper.
As a reminder, one of these trials is very similar to this one. At the beginning of September the court prohibited Hraparak newspaper to publish any article connected with the lawsuit of the Service for Compulsory Enforcement of Judicial Acts against Hraparak, without clearly specifying the legal purpose of such interference with the freedom of press. The lawsuit was filed by the head of Judicial Department Misak Martirosyan, according to whom the newspaper published articles on 11th and 12th of August named "Misak's Domain"-1 and Judicial Department - "Misak's Domain"-2, which contained 3 insulting and 9 defaming phrases.
He demanded 3mln Armenian drams for phrases which were quoted from the open letter of his employees. As a result of the complaints of human rights defender's office, media and NGOs, the newspaper was released from fine and was obliged to publish an article in month on which there will be consensus from both sides.