European Court of Human Rights Releases Verdict on Rustavi 2 TV

Today, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a verdict in the ownership case of one of Georgia’s largest TV channels, Rustavi 2.

According to the Court’s judgment, there were no violations of any Article of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Rustavi 2. Additionally, the rights of Rustavi 2 and its owners were not violated in the Georgian courts. Rustavi 2 can appeal the case in the Grand Chamber of Strasbourg.

The Strasbourg Court suspended a temporary measure whereby the mechanism of suspending the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia will no longer exist. Accordingly, the TV company will be re-registered to shareholder Kibar Khalvashi, as it was decided by the courts of three instances in Georgia. 

The applicants were Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and its current owners, TV Company Sakartvelo Ltd and Levan and Giorgi Karamanishvili, two brothers who are Georgian nationals living in Tbilisi.

The dispute led to a ruling in March 2017 by the Supreme Court of Georgia finding that a former owner of Rustavi 2 had been coerced into giving up the television channel and that the current owners were not, therefore, bona fide third-party acquirers. Pending those proceedings, Rustavi 2’s corporate assets and all of the owners’ shares in the company were frozen. In the case before the European Court of Human Rights, the current owners of Rustavi 2 alleged in particular that the judges examining the ownership row had lacked independence and impartiality.

In today’s Chamber judgment, the European Court held:

By six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal) of the European Convention on Human Rights as concerned the judge deciding the case at first instance;

Unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention as concerned the court deciding the case on appeal;

By six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as concerned the composition of the bench deciding the case during the cassation proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Court found in particular that all but one of the allegations of bias had either been unsubstantiated or unconvincing.

The involvement of Rustavi 2’s Director-General in disciplinary proceedings against the President of the Supreme Court some years previously, leading to her dismissal from her judicial post at the time, had raised an arguable claim of a lack of impartiality. However, the Supreme Court had extensively assessed any fears in that regard and had convincingly dissipated them in a thoroughly reasoned ruling. In coming to those conclusions, the Court bore in mind in particular that Rustavi 2’s owners had systematically introduced ill-founded recusal requests against many different judges at all three levels of jurisdiction in a probable attempt to paralyse the administration of justice, while Rustavi 2’s Director General had made gratuitous and virulent attacks in the media against the domestic judges involved in examining the ownership row and against the Georgian judiciary in general.

The Court unanimously rejected as inadmissible the remaining complaints brought by Rustavi 2’s owners as well as those brought by Rustavi 2 (the first applicant) itself, including in particular their allegations that the proceedings had been a State-led campaign to silence the television channel. Given those inadmissibility findings, the Court decided, unanimously, to lift the interim measure under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court indicating to the Georgian Government that it should among other things suspend enforcement of the decision of March 2017.

According to the judgment, the European Court of Human Rights:

1. Declares, unanimously, the second to fourth applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 concerning the independence and impartiality of Judges T.U., N.G. (in so far as the latter’s proximity to the former judge was concerned), M.T. and the President of the Supreme Court admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2. Decides, unanimously, to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court;

3. Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in so far as the independence and impartiality of the single-judge composition of Tbilisi City Court (Judge T.U.) was concerned;

4. Holds, unanimously, that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in so far as the independence and impartiality of the bench of Tbilisi Court of Appeal, which included Judge N.G., was concerned;

5. Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in so far as the independence and impartiality of the bench of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which included the President of the Supreme Court and Judge M.T., was concerned.

Related Story: European Court of Human Rights to Deliver Verdict on Rustavi 2 Today

By Ana Dumbadze  

18 July 2019 12:16