In a recent European Court of Human Rights judgment, the courts found Armenia to be in violation of ECHR Article 10, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, after Armenian courts convicted the applicant for defamation after he expressed corruption concerns in his place of work.
While the applicant was an employee of the company, he viewed the company's anti-corruption campaign published on the company’s website, which encouraged employees to report any information on corrupt practices at the company, providing a dedicated email address. The company promised to carry out an investigation and guaranteed that all reports would remain anonymous and confidential.
The applicant left his position at the company and subsequently sent a report that highlighted details of his colleague’s corrupt practices. The security team who received the report had a meeting with the applicant and asked him to sign a copy of the report. As the report made its way through relevant persons in the company, the Head of Security showed the report to the employee who was the subject of the report.
The subject of the report explained himself against all the accusations in the report and subsequently brought proceedings against the applicant for insult and defamation, seeking both an apology and compensation.
After a series of court proceedings, the court found the applicant guilty of insult and defamatory statements, taking into consideration the fact that he was no longer an employee of the company. The applicant was ordered to issue an apology as well as pay 2,000,000 Armenian Drums, equivalent to approximately 4500 Euro. Due to the high award of damages, the applicant had both his car and flat seized.
The applicant brought proceedings to the ECtHR alleging a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court considered whether the interference with Article 10 rights was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and whether it was necessary in a democratic society. The courts found that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim but found that it was not necessary in a democratic society and therefore ruled that there had been a violation of the applicants Article 10 rights.