Gorelishvili v. Georgia  | 2007

Greater protections for free speech after journalist sued for reporting on alleged political corruption

... the court reiterates that the press fulfils an essential function in a democratic society. Although it must not overstep certain bounds, particularly as regards the reputation and rights of others, its duty is nevertheless to impart – in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities – information and ideas on all matters of public interest.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, June 2007

Background

Ilnar Gorelishvili wrote a regular column for a newspaper, aiming to expose corruption in public service. One article, published in July 2000, concerned a politician with close links to the government and his ownership of several properties. It included a picture of his summer house, which was described as “a palace”. Ilnar compared the value of the properties to the politician’s salary, questioned how he could have acquired so many assets in public service alone, and suggested that it may have come from political corruption.

The politician sued Ilnar and her editor for defamation. The Georgian courts ruled in favour of the politician. It ordered the journalists to pay damages and publish a correction.

Ilnar took her case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court ruled that Ilnar Gorelishvili’s right to free speech had been violated.

Georgian defamation law at the time had not distinguished between facts and opinions. The facts which had been presented in the article were that the politician had owned the property. This had been based on his public declaration of ownership and was not in dispute.

The suggestion that the property had come from political corruption had not been presented as a fact. It had been raised as a possible opinion. Given the circumstances of the case, the opinion had not been unreasonable. However, the requirement by the Georgian courts for Ilnar to prove the truth of this opinion had interfered with her right to free speech. It had not been justified in the circumstances.

Follow-up

After the events took place, a new law on the media was passed in Georgia in 2004. This contained various legal protections for free speech, designed to be in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the law made a distinction between facts and opinions. People may be made responsible for publishing facts which are false and harmful. However, the law gives people absolute freedom of opinion.

The European court’s judgment in this case was translated into Georgian and distributed to various state bodies, including the Supreme Court. A subsequent judgment by the Supreme Court in 2009 again stressed the need to apply the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European court’s case-law to cases involving free speech.

Themes:

Related examples

Legal attack on a newspaper highlights the need for free speech reforms

Before a presidential election, the newspaper The Day published articles criticising two of the candidates. The politicians sued the owners of the newspaper for damages and won. The European court found that the owners had been punished merely for publishing opinions, violating their right to free speech. The case influenced reforms to protect freedom of expression in Ukraine.

Read more

Justice for magazine editor ordered to pay huge damages – and new rules to protect free speech

Retired journalist Veseljko Koprivica was ordered to pay huge damages after losing a defamation case. The European court ruled that the damages awarded were so excessive that they violated his right to free speech. A ruling by the Supreme Court of Montenegro specified that damages for defamation should not be high enough to discourage journalists from playing their key role in society.

Read more

Free speech reforms after writer prosecuted for reporting allegations of police brutality

In the early 1980s Thorgeir Thorgeirson wrote articles claiming that there was a problem with police brutality in Reykjavik. His reporting was based on the prosecution of a police officer and various public allegations. Nevertheless, he was convicted for defaming the police. The European court ruled that this had violated his right to freedom of expression, leading to free speech reforms.

Read more