Communicated on 26 January 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 30817/13 Artur SIMONYAN and “WORD OF LIFE” CHURCH OF CHRISTIANS OF EVANGELIC FAITH IN ARMENIA against Armenia lodged on 8 May 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The first applicant, the “Word of Life” Church of Christians of the Evangelic Faith in Armenia, is a religious organisation which has been registered in Armenia since 1993. The second applicant, Mr Artur Simonyan , the leader of the applicant organisation, is an Armenian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Upper Ptghni . They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Ghazaryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

In 2011 the authorities launched an investigation against certain K.A. on suspicion of disseminating pornographic material and breaching privacy rules. According to the charges, K.A. had published material of a private nature on the Internet, namely of him having sexual intercourse with a woman called A.S. The incident caused public concern and led to a debate, on the one hand, about respect for people ’ s private lives, and, on the other, about liability for the dissemination of pornographic material. The events resulted in numerous online media publications. Some of them included speculation that A.S. was a follower of the faith propagated by the applicants. Later, some media made various accusations, as detailed below, about the applicants on the basis of the speculation about A.S. ’ s alleged membership of the applicant organisation.

On 19 October 2011 the weekly newspaper Iravunk Hetaqnnutyun published a cartoon depicting the second applicant dressed as a priest with “Word of Life” written on his clothes, bowing towards a scantily clad woman, apparently A.S. Underneath the picture was an article headlined “The Theme of Sectarian Photos ‘ Blossomed ’ with Paedophile Accusations”. The article referred to the applicant organisation as a “sect” and a “sectarian union”.

The cartoon was reprinted in the 25-31 October 2011 issue of Russian-language weekly newspaper Argumenti Nedeli v Armenii . The article underneath was headlined “The Story of Sectarianism and Porno”.

On an unspecified date, during a local television channel talk show, A.S. stated that she had never been a member of the applicant organisation or any other religious organisation or church.

Iravunk Hetaqnnutyun and its editor-in-chief later published a number of cartoons, articles and other material about the applicants. Some of those publications called for joining the campaign against the applicants and had the following headlines: “Take Part in a War”; “A War Against Blasphemy”; “The Sects”; “The Ringleader of the ‘ Word of Life ’ Secretive Sect” and others.

On 18 November 2011 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Kentron and Nork- Marash District Court of Yerevan against Iravunk Media Ltd. (“the respondent organisation”), which publishes the Iravunk Hetaqnnutyun and Argumenti Nedeli v Armenii newspapers. The applicants sought to have the respondent organisation publish an apology and pay compensation for the damage caused to their dignity, honour and business reputation as a result of the alleged defamatory publications.

On 9 January and 13 April 2012 the applicants supplemented their initial claims. They asked the District Court to order the respondent to retract the information in its publications, which had incited religious hatred towards them. The applicants also argued that the word “sect” had a negative connotation that debased and insulted the followers of the religious group concerned. They said that referring to a religious organisation as a sect discouraged people from becoming followers of the faith promoted by that organisation. They presented research to the District Court on the meaning of “sect” with references to various sources, including a dictionary, national and international legal documents, articles and research publications.

On an unspecified date, at the request of the applicants, the Information Conflicts Council (“the Council”), an independent and private self ‑ regulatory body for the media, issued an opinion on the contested publications, including the use of the word “sect” when referring to a religious organisation. The Council concluded that the statements contained in the contested media publications lacked any factual basis to be regarded as “fair comment” and diligent journalism. In addition, the Council stated that the continuous and consistent use of the word “sect” in relation to the applicants turned the information in the media into religious hate speech.

On 22 March 2012 the respondent organisation sent a letter to the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, asking for clarification of whether or not the church was linked with the applicant organisation, whether the applicant organisation was a sect and, if it was, on what grounds.

On 23 March 2012 the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church responded to the letter of 22 March 2012. In particular, he stated that his church had no links with the applicant organisation and that it was a sect because its belief system had deviated from the true faith, canons and traditional principles of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

On the same day the District Court held its first hearing in the case. Activists organised a protest outside, holding banners with the following slogans: “Say no to sects”; “No to ‘ Word of Life ’ ”; “ ‘ Word of Life ’ is a sect”; “End proselyting”; “For the sake of the Armenian Apostolic Church”. A priest from the Armenian Apostolic Church was present at the protest.

On 19 June 2012, at the request of the applicants, an independent expert association on religious and legal matters (“the Association”) issued an opinion on the contested publications, including the use of the word “sect” when referring to a religious organisation. It concluded that the use of the words “sect”, “sectarian” and “sectary” in respect of the applicants was debasing, insulting and humiliating. It also observed that the contested media publications aimed at giving a clandestine and antisocial image to the applicant organisation.

On 31 July 2012 the District Court dismissed the applicants ’ claims. It held that the contested publications did not contain defamatory or insulting material and were protected by the respondent organisation ’ s freedom of expression. It also stressed that the applicants ’ had failed to prove defamatory intent on the part of the respondent. As regards the extensive use of the word “sect” in the articles when referring to the applicants, the District Court held:

“... the court finds it established that the articles and pictures were published in connection with the scandalous events involving the actress A.S. in which her name was linked to the religious organisation, which was regarded as a sectarian organisation and was subjected to criticism. From the moment the applicants entered the arena of open public debate, they needed to show a certain amount of tolerance for criticism, which, taken as a whole, has the nature of open debates for the purpose of the dissemination of certain religious ideas within society or for following the religious beliefs of the Armenian Apostolic Church, but not for insulting or defaming someone.

...

... the court notes that the words used by the respondent organisation and the authors of the publications aimed at reporting and criticising the activities of a religious organisation and its leader. Therefore, the expressions in the disputed articles should not be deemed as insulting and defamatory.

...

... the court considers that the word ‘ sect ’ in the article published by the respondent is a value judgment by the author, who used expressions that could shock society, including calling a religious organisation a sect.

The court notes that in the course of the trial the plaintiffs ’ representative admitted that the plaintiffs had no ties with the Armenian Apostolic Church.

According to B. Aghayan ’ s Explanatory dictionary of modern Armenian the word ‘ sect ’ means: 1. A religious belief deviating from the belief of the current church; 2. A religion that is alien to the main religion accepted in that country; 3. The followers of a sect; 4. A discipline deviating from any belief, the act of deviation from the foundations of any belief. The word ‘ sectarian ’ means: 1. Follower of a sect, heretic; 2. A figure who is guided by dogmatic convictions and the narrow interests of a group ...

In accordance with Article 8.1 of the Constitution, the freedom of all religious organisations functioning in accordance with the law is guaranteed in the Republic of Armenia.

T he Republic of Armenia recognises the exclusive historical mission of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church, as a national church, in the life and development of the national culture and the preservation of the national identity.

On the basis of the evidence examined during the proceedings the court observes that the examination of the material related to the activities of the plaintiffs obtained from the Internet and videos submitted to the court by the respondent shows that the plaintiffs ’ activities deviated from the beliefs of the Armenian Apostolic Church, and that its religious ceremonies and sacraments did not adhere to religious and traditional principles. The same is also proven by the letter from the Holy Catholicos of Armenians obtained in the course of the trial following the enquiry sent by the respondent ’ s lawyer. The court therefore finds that by referring to the plaintiff organisation as a sect the authors of the articles did not intend to insult or defame it. Rather, they intended to express an opinion and judgment about the organisation and its leader.”

The applicants appealed but on 8 November 2012 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 31 July 2012.

On 3 December 2012 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. The first page of the appeal stated that it had been lodged against the decision of 8 November 2012 and it also contained arguments against that decision. However, in the last paragraph the applicants asked the Court of Cassation to reverse the judgment of 31 July 2012. The appeal on points of law included a copy of the decision of 8 November 2012 and a postal receipt showing that those documents had been sent to the respondents and the Civil Court of Appeal.

On 16 January 2013 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible on the grounds that the applicants had appealed against the District Court ’ s judgment, whereas they should have appealed against the decision of the Civil Court of Appeal.

On 15 February 2013 the applicants re-submitted their 3 December 2012 appeal on points of law, changing the final paragraph to refer to the decision of 8 November 2012. The applicants attached an application to their appeal to restore the time-limit for lodging an appeal on points of law. They explained that the reference to the judgment of 31 July 2012 in the last paragraph of their first appeal on points of law had been a typographical error. In support of their explanation the applicants noted that the first page of their appeal on points of law and their arguments had referred to the decision of 8 November 2012. They also noted the sending of that decision to the respondent and the court, thereby showing that it had been that one that they had contested before the Court of Cassation.

On 6 March 2013 the Court of Cassation declared the amended appeal on points of law inadmissible as being lodged out of time and dismissed the applicants ’ application to restore the time-limit for such an appeal as being unfounded.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 233 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in force since 1999) states that when the Court of Cassation declares an appeal on points of law inadmissible it may set a time-limit for correcting any procedural errors and for re-submitting the appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the Court of Cassation ’ s refusal to admit their appeal on points of law owing to a typographical error breached their right of access to court.

The applicants complain under Article 9 of the Convention that the District Court ’ s finding that the use of the word “sect” in relation to the applicants was justified breached the State ’ s duty of impartiality and neutrality in religious matters.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the refusal by the Court of Cassation to admit the applicants ’ appeal on points of law breach their right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Was there a breach of the applicants ’ right to freedom of religion, guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention? In particular, did the District Court ’ s finding that the use of the word “sect” in relation to the applicants was justified breach the State ’ s duty of neutrality and impartiality in religious matters, as required by the same provision?