CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s4E4D3F0E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF9195E13 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s566E983B { margin-top:90pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 March 2021 FOURTH SECTION Application no. 51756/16 Arman SAHAKYAN and Others against Armenia lodged on 9 August 2016 communicated on 9 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are LGBT activists who filed a defamation claim against Iravunk newspaper and H.B., its editor-in-chief, on account of an article published on its website which allegedly contained discriminatory and insulting language. On 14 May 2015 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan partly granted the applicants’ defamation claim against Iravunk newspaper and H.B., its editor-in-chief. This judgment was upheld by the Civil Court of Appeal on 8 October 2015 and the Court of Cassation declared the applicants’ appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit on 20 January 2016. The judgment of 14 May 2015 thereby became final. The decision of the Court of Cassation was served on the applicants on 9 February 2016. On 30 March 2016 H.B. lodged an appeal with the Civil Court of Appeal against the judgment of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan dated 14 May 2015. By decision of 26 May 2016 the Civil Court of Appeal set aside that judgment and sent the case to the lower court for a fresh examination. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decision of the Civil Court of Appeal dated 26 May 2016, which set aside the final judgment in their favour, was in breach of the principle of legal certainty. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the quashing of the final judgment of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan of 14 May 2015 by the Civil Court of Appeal compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karen Poghosyan v. Armenia, no. 62356/09, §§ 44 and 46, 31 March 2016)? In that connection, was the quashing of the final judgment in the applicants’ case justified by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as correction of fundamental defects or miscarriage of justice (see, for example, Ryabykh v. Russia , no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX)?