On 4 May 2018, the judgment rendered by a judge of the Tbilisi City Court – Lasha Tavartkiladze – in the case of the Tbilisi City Hall v. Aiisa constituted a serious interference with the right to freedom of expression of the owner of the company Aiisa. The court has held that Aiisa’s owner is accountable for the violation of the statutory procedure for the distribution of the advertisement. The court imposed a fine of GEL 500 on the owner, Ani Gachechiladze. The court also ordered her to withdraw the advertisement as well as the advertised product already in distribution from the market.
The court found that the following imagery on the condom packaging was unethical and offended religious feelings of a particular group and national dignity: King Tamar with an inscription – Gate of Thrones in Tamar; the text – Astounding Victory; a left palm (the court considered this was the Blessing Right Hand by which the clergymen of the Orthodox Church depict cross; and the photo of a panda with a text – Would Have a Wank but it’s Epiphany (lyrics from the famous Georgian group’s song - „Would Have a Wank but it’s Epiphany“).
We believe that the court’s judgment is alarming and endangers the democratic state and society. The court ruled that individual freedom of expression should be limited on account of the perceptions and opinions of the majority or a particular group about religion and morals. Therefore, we believe that this judgment directly contradicts the Constitution of Georgia.
The hearing on the report of an administrative violation by Aiisa’s owner, Ani Gachechiladze, that was drawn up by the City Services’ Supervision Department of the Tbilisi City Hall was held on 2 May 2018 in Tbilisi City Court. The City Hall submitted that the imagery on the packaging of Aiisa condoms was unethical as it infringed public morals, religious feelings of a particular group and national dignity. The Tbilisi City Hall demanded imposition of a fine on the condom manufacturer (GEL 500) and prohibiting the manufacturer from future use of such packaging and advertisement.
It is noteworthy that during the consideration of the case the court rejected the motion requesting the suspension of court proceedings and applying to the Constitutional Court to challenge the constitutionality of those provisions of the Law on Advertisement, based on which the report on an administrative violation had been drawn up and which expressly runs counter to the freedom of expression safeguarded by the Constitution of Georgia.
We express our concern also due to the fact that the judge did not respond adequately to the insulting shouting and heckling by members of the public, who were attending the hearing, towards representatives of Aiisa and their communication with a City Hall representative during the proceedings. The court only followed up on one such incident and limited itself to verbally warning Dimitry Lortkipanidze.
It is similarly important that the report on an administrative violation drawn up by the City Services’ Supervision Department of the Tbilisi City Hall failed to meet formal and substantive statutory requirements. The report lacked reasoning and the position of the City Hall’s representative regarding unethical nature of the concerned imagery was based on abstract assessments and his prejudicial perceptions about religion, morals and ethics.
Considering the abovementioned, we believe that the court’s judgment contradicts the Constitution of Georgia, the Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Georgia and the case-law of the European Court.
Therefore, we believe the court’s judgment limiting freedom of speech on account of protecting religious freedoms and national dignity is a dangerous precedent of censorship.
