YPC Weekly Newsletter

2011


“ZHAMANAK” APPEAL ON THE SUIT OF TATUL MANASERIAN REVOKED

On December 15 RA Civil Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the court of general jurisdiction on the suit of protecting the honor and dignity of Pr. Tatul Manaserian, former Advisor to RA National Assembly Chairman, Doctor of Economics, versus the founder of “Zhamanak” daily, “Skizb Media Kentron” LLC. As it has been reported, the dispute matter became the piece, “Criminal Proceedings versus the Advisor to NA Chairman?”, which was published in “Zhamanak” on September 29, 2010 and alleged that criminal proceedings were instituted versus Tatul Manaserian on a charge of usury. On the same day, Tatul Manaserian called to the daily’s editorial office demanding to refute the information discrediting him. The next day, on September 30, “Zhamanak” published an article “Mr. Manaserian Haven’t You Lent $40,000 at Interest?”, which explained that criminal proceedings were instituted not versus Tatul Manaserian, but on the case of usury. On October 29, 2010 Tatul Manaserian addressed the court of general jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of Yerevan, demanding to bind the newspaper with publishing a refutation, paying off 2,5 million AMD (about $ 6,800), from which 2 million – as a compensation for the damage caused by defamation, while the 500,000 – court expenses. On September 20, 2011 the court secured the suit partially, obliging the founder of “Zhamanak” to publish a refutation and pay off the plaintiff 510,000 AMD: 300,000 – compensation for moral loss, 200,000 – court expenses, and 10,000 – state duty for filing the court (see YPC Weekly Newsletter, September 16-22, 2011).

On October 24, 2011 the founder of “Zhamanak” appealed the aforesaid ruling, demanding to abolish it and render the case for a new consideration by the court of first instance. The hearings at the Civil Court of Appeal were held on December 7.

The December 15 decision of the Civil Court of Appeal grounded the revocation of the complaint particularly by the fact that “Zhamanak” had not duly refute the information discrediting the plaintiff.