Hotline2 405 505

News

Saturday, 24 September, 2022
Share

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Adopts Decision on So-called War Case

As the public will be informed, on January 21, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) published its decision on the case - "Georgia v. Russia (II)" (the so-called "War Case"). The decision refers to the administrative practice of massive human rights violations against the population of Georgia during the August 2008 war and subsequent occupation by Russia, which exercised effective control over the Tskhinvali region and Abkhazia.

At the meeting of the Committee of Ministers in September of this year, the Georgian side spoke about the importance of the decision and stated a clear position that despite the termination of the status of a member of the Council of Europe for the Russian Federation, the respondent state still has an unconditional obligation to strictly implement the court's decision.

It is significant that the Committee of Ministers fully supported the Georgian side and emphasized the severity and scale of the established violations. The Ministerial Committee strongly called on Russia to submit as soon as possible a comprehensive action plan to implement the decision of the Grand Chamber of January 21 and to start taking effective steps to eliminate the root cause of the violations (i.e. the continued occupation) and to prevent the recurrence of similar human rights violations.

The Committee also expressed deep concern that the Russian Federation, which exercises effective control over Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region, still does not allow the internally displaced ethnic Georgian population to return to their homes and called on Russia to implement effective measures in this direction in order to implement the decision.

At the initiative of the Georgian side, the Committee will return to the consideration of the War Case at the next session, in December 2022.

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.