CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 4100/24 Mikheil RAMISHVILI against Georgia lodged on 7 February 2024 communicated on 18 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a civil defamation claim brought by the applicant, a known defence counsel, in respect of a statement made by Father I., a prominent clergyman of the Georgian Orthodox Church during one of his televised interviews. In particular, the applicant complained that Father I. had referred to him as an “informer” and provocateur” when discussing his role as a defendant’s counsel in a high-profile criminal case concerning an attempted murder of the Patriarch’s personal secretary, and further claimed that the applicant had fed information to the Director of the Constitutional Security at the Ministry of Interior when representing the interests of a victim’s family in another high-profile criminal case. The applicant complained about the damage to his honour and professional reputation. The Tbilisi City Court ruled in the applicant’s favour ordering Father I. to publicly retract his statement and to pay the applicant a symbolic amount of 1 Georgian lari in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Tbilisi Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the first instance court finding that the impugned statement constituted value judgement and that the applicant, in view of his status as a public figure, was expected to tolerate it. The Supreme Court confirmed the appeal court’s decision, noting in addition that the cooperation with the State authorities did not imply as such the committal of a criminal and/or administrative offence. Hence, with the impugned statement the applicant had not been accused of committing a criminal act. The applicant complains that the domestic courts’ refusal to protect his honour and reputation against the publicly voiced accusations of cooperation with the State’s security services by a prominent clergyman amounted to a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, specifically to his right to honour and reputation, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see, for the general principles, Jishkariani v. Georgia , no.   18925/09, § 46, 20 September 2018)?