Hotline2 405 505

News

Thursday, 24 March, 2022
Share

Rati Bregadze: "The Strasbourg Decision on the 2008 War Once and for All Proves that the Truth is on the Georgian Side and this Is a Great Victory for Georgia on the International Arena."

In connection with the August 2008 war, Georgia won another victory in the Strasbourg court. The European Court of Human Rights has published its judgement on 370 Russian-coordinated individual complaints filed against Georgia by residents of the Tskhinvali region and declared them inadmissible. This was announced by the Minister of Justice at the briefing held at the Ministry of Justice today.

"The European Court shared the arguments of the Georgian side that the allegations were manifestly ill-founded, as evidence of a minimum standard could not be submitted to substantiate the applicants' claims,” said ​​Rati Bregadze.

The Strasbourg court ruled that the Tskhinvali region was actively bombed by the Russian Federation during the war and that the Georgian Armed Forces did not exercise control over the Tskhinvali region and the surrounding area. Therefore, it is impossible to attribute any violation to Georgia.

This decision reaffirms that the serious violations committed against the population of Georgia during the August war will be attributed to specific representatives of the Russian Federation and the separatist regimes.

According to today's court ruling, the Russian-coordinated complaints of the people living in the Tskhinvali region against Georgia over the active hostilities during the August 2008 war and all disputes over this issue have been settled.

The Minister of Justice pointed out another circumstance, namely: after today's decision, only 154 complaints against Georgia will be considered in the Strasbourg court, which is the best indicator for Georgia during its membership in the Council of Europe. For comparison - in 2009-2012, the European Court processed from 3,000 to 4,000 complaints against Georgia.

"The sharp decline in appeals to the Strasbourg court is a result of the reforms implemented by the Georgian government in recent years - Georgian citizens can effectively protect their rights within the country," said Rati Bregadze.

As of 2022, such a small number of complaints are being dealt only against Scandinavia and several Western European countries, as well as very small states with minimal populations; Among the Central and Eastern European countries, Georgia is in the top four, next to the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Estonia, and, in total, is ahead of 25 Council of Europe (including 14 EU) countries.

For information: More than 3,300 complaints were filed against Georgia under the coordination of Russia in 2008-2009, however, based on the evidence and legal positions submitted by the Government of Georgia, the vast majority of complaints were dismissed or declared inadmissible because no evidence submitted to the European Court would confirm a violation of any article of the European Convention.

Today's ruling is another victory for Georgia in the international court against the Russian Federation. As it is known to the public, on January 21, 2021, in the August war case, the Strasbourg court found a massive violation of several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights by Russia and confirmed that the Tskhinvali region and Abkhazia are occupied by Russia. At the same time, on March 10, 2022, Georgia won another victory when the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Hague issued arrest warrants against three people for torturing and ill-treating Georgian civilians during the August war.

The Ministry of Justice of Georgia will actively pursue the protection of state interests in international courts.

"The decision of the Strasbourg war on the 2008 war confirms once and for all that the truth is on the side of Georgia and together we will definitely celebrate this great victory," said Rati Bregadze.

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.