National courts failed to protect high-profile defence lawyer’s reputation against clergyman’s accusations on live television (ECtHR)

In Chamber's judgment in the case of Ramishvili v. Georgia (application no. 4100/24) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned civil defamation proceedings brought by the applicant, a well-known defence lawyer, against a prominent clergyman of the Georgian Orthodox Church, for statements he had made during a televised interview accusing him of being a “snitch” and feeding information to the secret services.

The Court found that the clergyman’s statements had been made in the context of a matter of public interest, namely a high-profile criminal case, and that the applicant himself was a public figure who therefore had to show higher tolerance of others’ opinions. 

However, the accusations against him had been very serious and should have had a solid basis in fact to be protected under the Convention. Instead of looking into whether this had been the case, the national courts had placed the burden of proof on the applicant to rebut the accusations against him.

The Court therefore considered that the courts had failed to strike a fair balance between Mr Ramishvili’s right to respect for his dignity and reputation, on the one hand, and the clergyman’s freedom of expression, on the other.

The Court held that Georgia was to pay the applicant 4,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses. 

The decision is available here

(source:echr.coe.int/photo freepik.com)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Greek Administrative Court rules state liable for Covid-19 vaccine side effects due to "excessive sacrifice"

Image
Greece: The Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens, in its decision no. 4202/2025, has ruled that the Greek State is liable for damages sustained by an individual due to side effects following a preventive "COVID-19" vaccination. This landmark decision was issued in a compensation lawsuit filed against the Hellenic Republic. The Case: Seeking Compensation for Vaccine-Related Harm The lawsuit was brought by a plaintiff seeking compensation for material damage and moral harm (non-pecuniary damage), alleging that they suffered severe side effects after their preventive COVID-19 vaccination with a specific vaccine. The initial claim was for €461,835.26, but this amount was subsequently restricted during the proceedings. The plaintiff based their claim on two legal grounds: Article 105 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code (EισNAK): This article concerns the State's liability for compensation arising from illegal acts or omissions of its organs in the exe...
Read more

Legal Professional Privilege in the Digital Age: Recent case law of the ECtHR and the core principles that should govern searches

Image
By Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer The protection of legal professional privilege is a fundamental pillar of the right to respect for private life and correspondence (Article 8 of the ECHR), as well as of the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR). In recent years, as the use of digital means in the practice of law has become firmly established, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has delivered important judgments focusing mainly on the digital age, searches of law offices and the surveillance of communications between lawyer and client. Set out below is a selection of ECtHR case law on such matters: Seizure and retention of vast amounts of lawyers' digital data In Kırdök and Others v. Turkey (3 December 2019), the national authorities seized all the hard drives and digital files of a law office in the course of an investigation, without distinguishing between the documents relating to the case and the confidential files of other clients. The Court found a violat...
Read more

From Regulation to Strategy: Europe’s New Tech Agenda

Image
Written by Efi Thoma, Senior Global Legal Counsel  Europe’s approach to technology regulation is entering a more practical phase. After several years of ambitious rule-making, Brussels is increasingly focused on implementation, enforcement and simplification. For technology companies, the key question is no longer simply “What does the law require?” but “How do we make these requirements work in practice without unnecessarily slowing innovation?” The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) establishes a risk-based framework covering areas such as transparency, governance, human oversight and high-risk AI systems. As implementation progresses, the emphasis is increasingly on making the framework workable in practice, including through regulatory sandboxes and measures supporting implementation. For businesses, the practical approach is to embed AI governance into existing processes rather than create an entirely separate compliance structure. AI inventories, risk classification, procu...
Read more

Corporate Personality and Damages for Loss Caused to a Third Party Company: Forthwell v Pontegadea (UKSC)

Image
With its recent decision in Forthwell Ltd v Pontegadea UK Ltd [2026] UKSC 33, handed down on September 17, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom considered a particularly important issue of contract law: whether a contracting party can claim damages for loss suffered by a third party, and specifically by a company within the same group. The case concerned the historic Rogano restaurant in Glasgow. Forthwell, the tenant of the property, had granted the use of the premises to its wholly-owned subsidiary, Lynnet Leisure, which operated the restaurant. Following severe flood and fire damage, the restaurant was unable to reopen, and Lynnet suffered a significant loss of profits. Forthwell sought to recover these losses from the landlord. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim. It affirmed the general rule that a contracting party may recover damages for its own loss and not, in principle, for loss suffered by a third party. The Court declined to create a new, broader exception that ...
Read more

Obligation for lawyers to appear in person before disciplinary bodies : Advisory Opinion by ECtHR

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has delivered its opinion in response to a request (no. P16-2026-002) for an advisory opinion made by the Constitutional Court of Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, under Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The request concerned the compatibility with Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention of the obligation for a lawyer facing disciplinary proceedings to appear in person at the hearing before the disciplinary body and, in the event of failure to do so, the resulting inability to be represented by counsel instead and to apply to the body in question to set aside an adverse decision entered in default (section 26 of the Law of 10 August 1991). It was made in the context of proceedings in which a former lawyer of the Luxembourg Bar had been disbarred for life by the Luxembourg disciplinary authorities. The Court clarified that the right to a fair hearing did not in principle preclude domestic legislation from...
Read more

Unreasoned decision dismissing objections by applicant who was imprisoned pursuant to judgment not concerning him violated ECHR: Judgement against Greece

Image
In Chamber's judgment dated 15.10.2024 in the case of Nsingi v. Greece (application no. 27985/19) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security / right to compensation) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the rejection of the applicant’s claim for compensation for having been imprisoned pursuant to a sentence that had been handed down in respect of a different person, for whom he had been mistaken at the time of his arrest.  On 6 June 2018 the applicant was arrested by the police and, after verification of his identity, was registered under the name of an individual who had been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for drug possession. The prosecutor ordered that he be sent to prison.  On 20 June 2018 the applicant demanded that he be released, objecting that he was not the person who had been convicted and sentenced. The Criminal Court dismissed the appl...
Read more