Hotline2 405 505

News

Monday, 28 February, 2022
Share

Rati Bregadze: "We Prove our Pro-European Orientation by Deeds and not by False Statements"

"We are acting without undue agitation due to the needs of the Ukrainian state, naturally taking into account our national interests," the Georgian Justice Minister told Imedi TV today.

According to Rati Bregadze, the current government of Georgia is not focused on reprimands and does not mention people and friendly countries every second about the assistance provided. The Minister of Justice also responded to the actions of the opposition and called the discourse on domestic issues instead of Ukraine "very unfortunate.”

The Minister also responded to the opposition's accusations and made it clear that instead of making statements during the Georgian Dream's tenure in power, the government demonstrated the country's commitment to the country's pro-European course.

"It was under the rule of the Georgian Dream that amendments were made to the Constitution, according to which Article 78 of the Constitution appeared, and it was this constitutional record that instructed all constitutional bodies to take all measures within their authority to ensure Georgia's full integration into the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. "Here, the Georgian government has expressed its will," - said the Minister.

Rati Bregadze also spoke about disputes against Russia at the European Court of Human Rights. According to the Minister, Georgia has already won two important lawsuits under the Georgian Dream: "It was during the Georgian Dream that Georgia won the case of the illegally deported and the Russian Federation was obliged to pay 10 million euros ... Georgia won the so-called war "For the first time, there is a record in international documents that Russia is an occupier.”

The Minister also touched on the case of the so-called “creeping” occupation, noting that the dispute is continuing in the Strasbourg court and that the government will bring it to an end. According to the Minister of Justice, Georgia has never been so close to Europe as it is today:

“Visa-free travel to the European Union became possible during the rule of the Georgian Dream. Today, Georgia is closer to the European Union than ever before. "We are proving our pro-European nature through deeds and not through false statements."

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.