Claim: On 18 August 2014, the news agency Exclusivenews published an article titled “Giorgi Vashadze’s Brother ‘Got Married’?!” by journalist Darejan Liparteliani. According to the complainant, with this article, alleging that the complainant has intimate relationship and lives with the head of Prometheus cinema, Gaga Chkhaidze, the journalist defamed the complainant.

According to the complainant, the journalist showed interest towards him for the only reason that he is the brother of Giorgi Vashadze, one of the leaders of the political association United National Movement and the publication aimed at discrediting both Giorgi Vashadze and him rather than satisfying the public interest.

The complainant noted that the author of the article neither contacted him nor made any attempt to double check the information received from an “informant” regardless of the fact that, as the article reveals, the journalist had the complainant’s phone number. Consequently, the complainant learned about the article only after its publication and was not given a possibility to provide adequate response to the incorrect information released about him.

The initial complaint indicated both the media owner Exclusivenews LLC and the journalist as Darejan Liparteliani defendants, however, at a session held on 24 March, the complainant specified the claim indicating the Exclusivenews LLC as the only defendant.

The complainant demanded (1) the retraction of false facts released by Exclusivenews LLC and the publication of the court decision by the news agency, (2) the compensation for moral damage in the amount of 10,000 GEL by Darejan Lipeateliani and Exclusivenews LLC solidarily.

The defendants Darejan Lipeateliani and Exclusivenews LLC did not appear at a main court session held at 10:00 on 24 March 2015. They did not notify the court about the reason of their absence. The representative of the complainant filed a motion for ruling in absentia.

Ruling: On 24 March 2015, because of the failure of defendants to appear before the court, the Tbilisi City Court made a ruling in absentia and fully satisfied the claim of the complainant.

According to the court ruling, the Exclusivenews LLC was (1) ordered to refute the information published in the article of Darejan Liparteliani titled “Giorgi Vashadze’s Brother ‘Got Married’?!” in the Exclusivenews in the following form: to publish that the information according to which “Vashadze and Chkheidze were in intimate relationship. Now they decided to come out. Therefore Gaga Chkehidze ‘legalized’ his relationship with Vashadze and they live together today. In short, Giorgi Vashadze’s brother ‘got married’,” is false.

The court imposed the compensation of 10,000 GEL for moral damage to Davit Vashadze on Darejan Liparteliani and the Exclusivenews LLC.

Motivation: The decision notes that according to Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the Civil Procedures Code of Georgia, if the defendant fails to appear at the hearing and the plaintiff files a motion for a judgement in absentia, then the factual circumstances referred to in the claim shall be deemed proven. In accordance to Paragraph 2 of Article 230 of the Civil Procedures Code, if the circumstances referred to in the claim provide a legal justification for the claim, the claim shall be satisfied.

The city court ruled that the circumstances referred to in the claim and deemed as proven legally justifies the claim in accordance to Article 17 of the Law of Georgia on the Freedom of Speech and Expression and Article 18 of the Civil Procedures.

Appeal: The news agency appealed the decision taken in absentia.

Comment: The journalist challenges that part of the decision of the court of first instance, which imposes on her the compensation, because according to Article 6(2) of the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression, “In case of a court dispute related to the defamation published by a journalist in the media, the defendant shall be the owner of the media.” The complainant specified his initial claim and indicated the Exclusivenes LLC as the only defendant, but the court wrongly imposed the payment of compensation on the journalist.

Share: