On April 29, 2022, Nana Shamatava, Tbilisi City Court Civil Cases Collegiate Judge, announced the decision in the case of Grigol Liluashvili v. Formula Ltd., Mtavari Arkhi Ltd. and Levan Khabeishvili. The court satisfied Grigol Liluashvili's lawsuit and accordingly established the fact of defamation against him.
The case concerns the lawsuit of the head of the State Security Service, Grigol Liluashvili. On TV Formula and on Mtavari Arkhi (TV Mtavari), statements were made about the criminal schemes of the so-called “call centers,” and it was discussed that the State Security Service and its head, Mr. Liluashvili may have been linked to them. He disputed these statements.
Defendant media representatives argued the statements made by the journalists were findings based on sufficient factual circumstances. Hence, demands of imposing civil liability on them should not have been admissible claims. The purpose of the statements was not to attack Liluashvili, but to expose state agencies. In addition, their legal arguments were based on the European Court of Human Rights and the common courts of Georgia case law.
Regrettably, the court did not consider the arguments of the media representatives, and the judge, agreeing with the plaintiff, noted that the statements made by the journalist had damaged the plaintiff’s honor, dignity, and business reputation.
However, several major issues were identified during the litigation:
The judge took a special interest in the lawsuit filed by the head of the Security Service. In contrast to the established practice of reviewing similar cases, she considered this particular unusually rapidly: in just 10 weeks after the lawsuit had been lodged;
The judge dismissed almost all the motions of the respondent TV stations and an MP, including petitions regarding the termination of the case and attach evidence to the file;
The court did not consider that we’re not presented with any preconditions provided by the Georgian legislation that would allow to interpret the disputed statement as slanderous. It cannot be proven that the plaintiff suffered any damages, and the plaintiff also could not prove that the defendants acted with obvious and gross negligence;
The plaintiff based his position on the manipulative interpretations of the European Court of Human Rights and the national court case law, which was an attempt to mislead the court;
The court did not consider the threats posed by such a decision. Among them, the court failed to notice that the lawsuit was brought forward by the head of the State Secret Service, who has elevated duty to tolerate nuisances such as critical opinions aired by media.
It is noteworthy that critical statements made in the media have repeatedly been used as the basis for litigation, especially at the initiative of the authorities. This is another case in a chain of abusing litigation mechanism, and is aimed at silencing journalists / media. It is and illegally restricting freedom of speech and expression (so-called SLAPP lawsuits). Given the tendency of baseless lawsuits by government officials, the decision sets a worrisome precedent, as there is now an increased expectation that freedom of speech and expression will become the object of litigation.
LTD Formula is represented by the GDI. The GDI provides legal support on media freedom issues, including in this case, in partnership with the European Endowment for Democracy (EED) within the framework of the project: "Protection of media freedom by improving media regulations in law, administrative practice and case law".
