Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 98

June 2007

Gorelishvili v. Georgia - 12979/04

Judgment 5.6.2007 [Section II]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Lack of a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments in domestic law at the material time: violation

Facts : The applicant, a journalist, published a newspaper article criticising various politicians and government officials. 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 gave an overview of the financial situation of an exiled parliamentarian from the Abkhazian legislature in the light of his official property declaration. It included the following extracts: “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 [the parliamentarian] and people like him feed on air, without ever spending their earnings. Otherwise, how else could they manage to save so much?!” The parliamentarian brought defamation proceedings. These ended in the Supreme Court, which found that the applicant's criticism was unfounded and that she had been negligent. She and the editor were ordered to pay jointly EUR 46 and to retract the two sentences.

Law : Article 10 – The sole issue was whether the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression, which pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of others, was “necessary in a democratic society”. The following elements were taken into account: the parties' positions, the subject matter of the publication and the domestic courts' qualification of the contested statements.

(a) The respective positions of the parties : The applicant was a journalist. Her duty was to provide information and ideas on matters of public interest and, although she was obliged to take account of the rights and reputation of others, she was allowed a certain amount of journalistic freedom which could involve exaggeration or even provocation. The other party to the proceedings was an exiled parliamentarian from the Abkhazian legislature. Politicians, by the very nature of their work had to accept public scrutiny and show a greater degree of tolerance when criticised.

(b) The subject matter of the publication : The article had not referred to anything confidential and contributed to a matter of important and ongoing public interest: corruption in the public sector. Its specific concern with this particular parliamentarian's assets had been intensified by his association with the sensitive issue of Abkhazia.

(c) The domestic courts' qualification of the contested statements : The interference was limited to the two sentences which cast doubt over how the parliamentarian could have constructed his summer house. The domestic law on defamation at the time made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact and had led the Supreme Court to conclude that the comments concerned were statements of fact without even examining the possibility that they might be value judgments. That incomplete analysis represented an indiscriminate approach to the assessment of speech and was incompatible with freedom of opinion.

In the Court's view, the sentences expressed the applicant's opinion on the credibility of the property declaration, and did not constitute a gratuitous, personal attack. The applicant had not distorted or recklessly disregarded information which was publicly available and, as a journalist, was entitled to rely on an official document without having to undertake independent research. To find otherwise would undermine the vital role of the press as a public-watchdog in a democratic society. Accordingly, the Supreme Court had not given relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference with her right to impart information and ideas on matters of public concern and the interference had therefore not been necessary in a democratic society.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes