GeoEng
Hotline2 405 505
Home
News
Rati Bregadze: “Decision of the Strasbourg Court Made it Clear that there Are no Additional Circumstances for the Application to Be Considered Further"

News

Monday, 04 April, 2022
Share

Rati Bregadze: “Decision of the Strasbourg Court Made it Clear that there Are no Additional Circumstances for the Application to Be Considered Further"

Minister of Justice, Rati Bregadze spoke on Imedi TV about the exclusion of Saakashvili's application from the list of cases considered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). According to Rati Bregadze, the decision of the Strasbourg court, leaves no doubt that there are no special circumstances that indicated torture and inhuman treatment.

"The application referred to the third article, which deals with torture. In this context, they requested an additional investigation, in which they wanted him to be immediately transferred to the clinic and this application to be continued to be considered in the future. The court also appealed to the defense and set a deadline of December 8, that they should present additional evidence before this specific deadline,” said Rati Bregadze.

According to the Minister, this decision in Strasbourg unequivocally confirms that there are no special circumstances that pointed to and still indicate torture and inhuman treatment:

"The Strasbourg court says directly that at this stage there are no problems with this issue. Naturally, the defense, their supporters, will always try to ignore this or present it as if it's nothing at all, but it is a fact, a verdict, a decision that says very clearly and unequivocally that notwithstanding what they have been arguing about throughout this period, torture, inhuman treatment, etc., the issues is closed. Then the state inspector also wrote a report, which we have appealed in court and the Ministry of Justice and the Special Penitentiary Service are the winners in this case as well. Eventually, the truth was found at both the national and European levels that all actions taken by the state against Saakashvili when he was in the penitentiary were correct and in full compliance with European values ​​and the rule of law," said the Minister.

According to Rati Bregadze, the Ministry of Justice's priority is to properly inform the public; The agency respects the International Court of and never interprets facts.

"We always try to establish the exact facts and that is why I read an excerpt from the decision, according to which the court dismissed the application in the case "Saakashvili v. Georgia” and also pointed out a very significant phrase - in addition, the court does not consider any special circumstances, which, in accordance with the European Convention and the Protocols, requires further consideration of this application." "That is why I do not enter into certain interpretations of this case, and I will inform the public about what is written in the court decision and here is the official translation of the ruling," said Rati Bregadze.

According to the Minister, if we go into more details and look at Article 37, it also indicates that, even if there are formal preconditions, the court can still consider it further, but the court ruled it out and added that there are no additional circumstances requiring the application to be considered further. The court also said that there are no special circumstances which additionally give rise to the obligation to review the application.

Other News

Share
Print

Memorial Ceremony for Victims of the 1990s Armed Conflict Held at the Holy Trinity Cathedral

Prime Minister of Georgia Irakli Kobakhidze, members of the Government, and Minister of Justice Paata Salia attended the civil funeral service at the Holy Trinity Cathedral of Tbilisi for individuals transferred from the occupied region of Abkhazia who had gone missing during the armed conflict of the 1990s.

Paata Salia honored the memory of the deceased and extended his condolences to their families and loved ones.

Through the joint efforts of the Office of the State Minister for Reconciliation and Civil Equality and the International Committee of the Red Cross, and within the framework of a coordination mechanism involving Georgian and Abkhaz participants, 11 missing persons were identified and returned to their families. Among them were 2 military personnel and 9 civilians.
19.05.2026
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.
19.05.2026