CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 juin 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   379 5.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GORELISHVILI v. GEORGIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Gorelishvili v. Georgia (application no. 12979/04).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,500   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts The applicant, Ilnar Gorelishvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Tbilisi (Georgia). She was a journalist at the relevant time.   In July 2000, Ms Gorelishvili published an article in the newspaper “Meridiani   44” in which she criticised various politicians and government officials, notably referring to their declared assets. In the context of the general problem of corruption in the public sector, the article was part of a regular column which informed the public about the financial situation of political figures in the light of their property declarations.   The article began on the first page of the newspaper with a photograph of a summer house owned by Givi Lominadze, at the relevant time an exiled Member of Parliament from the Abkhazian legislature. It went on to give an overview of Mr Lominadze’s financial situation in the light of his official property declaration, making the following remarks: “the son ‑ in ‑ law probably gave a hand to his father-in-law [the Parliamentarian], otherwise the latter could hardly have finished ... the construction of the summer house ...” and “one can only wonder whether Lominadze and people like him feed on air, without ever spending their earnings. Otherwise, how else could they manage to save so much?!”.   As a result, Mr Lominadze sued Ms Gorelishvili and the editor of the Meridiani   44 for defamation. Mr Lominadze claimed that the article indirectly suggested that he had acquired the summer house and an apartment in Tbilisi since becoming a parliamentarian in 1993 but, in reality, he had obtained most of his possessions in the 1970s and 1980s.   On 23 January 2002 Vake-Saburtalo District Court in Tbilisi concluded that the article was sarcastic and humiliating enough to cause the reader to view Mr Lominadze negatively and that Ms   Gorelishvili had failed to prove, under Article 18 § 2 of the Civil Code, that she had not intended to accuse the parliamentarian of corruption. She was therefore found liable for defamation. The court ordered a rectification to be published and Mr Lominadze to be paid 100 Laris (GEL – EUR 46) for non-pecuniary damage and GEL 500 (EUR 230) for costs and expenses.   Ultimately, on 12 September 2003, again relying on Article 18 of the Civil Code, the Supreme Court considered that the applicant’s criticism was unfounded and concluded that she had been negligent. The applicant and the editor were ordered to pay jointly GEL 100 (EUR 46) and to retract the sentences quoted above concerning the construction of Mr   Lominadze’s summer house without spending his earnings.   According to Ms Gorelishvili that final judgment was notified to her outside the prescribed time-limit and was not stamped or signed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 March 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Ms Gorelishvili complained that the defamation proceedings against her had unjustifiably restricted her journalistic freedom. Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), she alleged that she almost missed the six-month time-limit for applying to the Court due to the Supreme Court’s failure to communicate to her in good time a copy of the judgment of 12   September 2003. Decision of the Court   Article 10 It was not disputed between the parties that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 12 September 2003 amounted to an “interference” with Ms Gorelishvili’s right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, that interference was “prescribed by law” – Article 18 of the Civil Code – and pursued the “legitimate aim” of protecting the reputation of others. The Court decided to determine whether that interference was “necessary in a democratic society”.   The Court took the following elements into account: the parties’ positions, the publication’s content and the domestic courts’ qualification of the contested statements.   Ms Gorelishvili was a journalist. Her duty was to provide information and ideas on matters of public interest and, while obliged to take account of the rights and reputation of others, was allowed a certain amount of journalistic freedom which could involve exaggeration or even provocation.   Mr Lominadze was an exiled Member of Parliament from the Abkhazian legislature. The Court recalled that politicians, by the very nature of their work, accepted public scrutiny and should show a greater degree of tolerance when criticised.   The article had not referred to anything confidential and contributed to a matter of important and ongoing public interest: corruption in the public sector. The Court also noted that the article’s specific concern with this particular parliamentarian’s assets had been intensified by his association with the sensitive issue of Abkhazia.   The Court further observed that the scope of the interference had actually been limited to the sentences which had cast doubt over how Mr Lominadze could have constructed his summer house. Georgian law on defamation at the time, notably Article 18 of the Civil Code, had made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact and had led the Supreme Court to conclude that the sentences had been statements of fact without even examining the possibility of whether they could have been considered as value judgments. In the Court’s view, that incomplete analysis represented an indiscriminate approach to the assessment of speech and was incompatible with freedom of opinion.   The Court, on the other hand, considered that those sentences had been Ms Gorelishvili’s opinion on the credibility of Mr Lominadze’s property declaration. The burden of proof as regards such a subjective assessment could obviously not be proved. Given the type and value of the parliamentarian’s property, his high salary and his family relationship with the Head of the President’s Security Service, there had been a sufficiently close link between the contested sentences and the circumstances of the case. The article could not therefore be considered a gratuitous, personal attack on the parliamentarian.   The Court was not convinced by the argument that it had been Ms Gorelishvili’s duty to enquire when and how exactly Mr Lominadze’s had acquired his property. As acknowledged by the Government, Mr Lominadze’s official property declaration had not contained any details about the dates or origin of his possessions. Consequently, the applicant could not be said to have distorted or recklessly disregarded information which was publicly available. Furthermore, the Court found that, as a journalist, Ms Gorelishvili had been entitled to rely on the contents of an official document without having had to undertake independent research. To find otherwise would undermine the vital role of the press as a public-watchdog in a democratic society.   In the light of the above, the Court concluded that the Supreme Court had not given relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference with Ms Gorelishvil’s right to impart information and ideas on matters of public concern and that that interference had therefore not been necessary in a democratic society. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article   10.   Article 6 § 1 The Court found that the case file did not appear to disclose a violation of Article 6 § 1 during the domestic proceedings assessed as a whole and that, therefore, that part of the application had to be rejected.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.