Hotline2 405 505

News

Thursday, 30 June, 2022
Share

Strasbourg Court Rules Bachana Akhalaia's Appeals Inadmissible

On June 30, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) published its ruling on the case - Akhalaya v. Georgia and declared the appeals inadmissible as clearly unfounded.

The applicant - Bachana Akhalaia argued before the Strasbourg court that the restraining measure - imprisonment - used against him in the framework of various criminal cases in 2012-2014 was illegal, because the total term of imprisonment exceeded the maximum term defined by law - 9 months. The applicant also claimed that his detention was not properly justified by the national courts and served the purpose of a politically motivated criminal prosecution (Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to liberty and security) in conjunction with Article 18 of the Convention (scope of application of restrictions of rights).

According to the assessment of the ECHR, the detention of the applicant as a preventive measure was in full compliance with Georgian legislation and court practice. The Strasbourg Court found that there was no intentional delay in the investigation or any arbitrariness on the part of the investigating authority/prosecutor or the court within the framework of the ongoing criminal proceedings against the applicant.

The European Court also clarified that the decisions of the Tbilisi City Court regarding the application of the restraining order were properly justified in accordance with both Georgian legislation and European standards and were based on the proven dangers of concealment and impact on witnesses.

As for the applicant's claims of political persecution, the court clarified that since the claims regarding the legality of the detention are clearly unfounded, the applicant's position that his detention was politically motivated should also be declared inadmissible.

Other News

Share
Print

According to the Strasbourg Court, Publicly Made Insulting, Obscene, and Degrading Statements Fall Outside the Scope of Freedom of Expression

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg upheld the position of the Ministry of Justice in the case of Miladze v. Georgia, confirming that publicly made insulting, obscene, and degrading statements directed at public officials are not protected under the right to freedom of expression.

The case concerned a video published on the social media platform TikTok in 2022, in which the applicant, civil activist Irakli Miladze, used obscene and insulting language toward the Mayor of Tbilisi, City Hall employees, and police officers. As a result, the national courts imposed a fine of 500 GEL, the minimum penalty provided for by law.

The Strasbourg Court unanimously held that the applicant’s statements did not amount to political criticism or the expression of views on a matter of public interest. According to the Court’s assessment, the language used was intended primarily to humiliate and insult public officials.

The Court also agreed with the reasoning of the national courts, noting that they had properly distinguished between harsh political criticism, which is protected in a democratic society, and personal insults, which are not. The judgment further emphasized that the sanction imposed on the applicant was minimal and proportionate, as he received only the lowest fine available under the law.

Today’s ruling by the Strasbourg Court reaffirmed an important principle: freedom of expression is one of the fundamental values of a democratic society and protects even strong and offensive criticism; however, it does not extend to humiliating or personally insulting statements directed at others, including public officials and civil servants.

The judgment further underscores that the state is entitled to protect political officials and public servants from unjustified verbal abuse and insults, ensuring that they are able to perform their duties in an environment free from attacks that undermine their dignity.

The Court’s assessment once again highlights the fundamental importance of freedom of expression, while clearly establishing that the exercise of this right — particularly on the internet and social media platforms — must not infringe upon the dignity and rights of others.