The court case filed by Lydian Armenia against environmental activist Nazeli Vardanyan is ongoing. The company is seeking 6 million AMD in compensation and a public retraction of the statements it disputes, claiming that they constitute defamation. International human rights organizations have already characterized the proceedings as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), aimed at silencing critical speech.
On October 29, during a hearing at the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction of First Instance of Yerevan, a representative of Lydian Armenia submitted a motion requesting amendments and additions to the grounds and subject matter of the claim. The plaintiff justified this step by stating that the claims needed to be made more detailed and precise.
The amendment concerns the rewording of one point in the claim. Under the amended motion, the plaintiff is asking the defendant, Nazeli Vardanyan, to retract word for word every statement made in a recording included in an article published on the Panorama.am website on January 20, 2026, which, according to Lydian Armenia, contains defamatory and insulting remarks about the company.
The defense objected, noting that the information included in the amended claim had already been known to the company eight months earlier, when the original lawsuit was filed, and that the plaintiff had introduced no new factual circumstances.
Nevertheless, the Court granted Lydian Armenia’s motion. The judge announced that the amendments to the grounds and subject matter of the claim would take effect upon the issuance and publication of the ruling.
Gurgen Torosyan, the representative of defendant Nazeli Vardanyan, asked the plaintiff for clarification. When asked whether the name of Lydian Armenia CJSC was mentioned anywhere in the disputed recording, the plaintiff responded that any reasonable person would attribute the statements made in the recording to Lydian Armenia, thereby damaging the company’s reputation.
Nazeli Vardanyan added that she had spoken about Lydian International, the American company Orion Mine Finance, the Canadian company Osisko Gold Royalties, the Armenian Government, the state, and the contractor responsible for carrying out blasting operations. However, she said, Lydian Armenia had attributed all these statements to itself and characterized them as defamatory.
The Court granted the defendant and Panorama.am LLC, which is involved in the case as a third party, time to review the amended claim and present their positions at the next hearing. The hearing was adjourned.
It should be recalled that on February 17, 2026, a representative of Lydian Armenia CJSC filed a lawsuit against Nazeli Zaven Vardanyan, with Panorama.am LLC named as a third party. The claims sought to compel the retraction of information alleged to be defamatory and to recover AMD 6 million in compensation for statements allegedly damaging the company’s business reputation.
International human rights organizations view this case in the context of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).
International Organizations Warn of Threat of SLAPPs
On October 9, 2026, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, jointly with the NGO Civil Society Institute (CSI), issued a statement concerning new legal proceedings against Nazeli Vardanyan and Tehmine Yenokyan.
According to the organizations, when considered in the context of previous proceedings, these cases bear the characteristics of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) and could have a chilling effect on environmental human rights advocacy and public-interest debate in Armenia.
SLAPPs are legal proceedings that can be used to restrict critical speech on matters of public importance or to subject individuals who engage in public oversight to financial and legal pressure.
The organizations expressed particular concern about the combination of Lydian Armenia’s financial claim and its demand for a public retraction. They emphasized that such measures could not only affect the work of the human rights defender directly targeted but also discourage others from raising environmental and human rights concerns.
The organizations called on Lydian Armenia to withdraw the lawsuits filed against the two environmental human rights defenders and to respond to criticism of the Amulsar project through transparency, access to information, scientific evidence, and meaningful public dialogue.
They also called on the Armenian authorities to ensure that human rights defenders can exercise their rights to freedom of expression, participate in environmental decision-making, and protect human rights without intimidation, retaliation, or persecution.
“It Is Undoubtedly a SLAPP Proceeding”: The Lawyer’s Assessment
In an interview with EcoLur after the hearing, lawyer Gurgen Torosyan reiterated his assessment, describing the proceedings as a classic SLAPP. He stated that, in his view, the case was intended to restrict public participation and silence people. According to the lawyer, the circumstances discussed during the hearing, including the question of who the disputed statements were addressed to, give the defense grounds to question the validity of the claim.
At the same time, Torosyan said that it was too early to predict the final outcome of the case: the Court still needs to examine the substance of the claim and the arguments presented by both parties. However, he argued that since the case lacks a genuine legal basis and serves as a tool to pressure and exhaust an activist, it has no prospect of succeeding in the long term.
At the beginning of the hearing, an EcoLur journalist asked the Court for permission to film the proceedings. Judge Arman Ohanyan discussed the request to record the hearing with the parties. However, Lydian Armenia objected to filming and also rejected the judge’s second proposal to ensure that the parties’ faces would not appear in the video.
As a result, filming was prohibited, but the journalist was permitted to document the proceedings and continue carrying out their professional duties.
October 30, 2026 at 14:35