Information Note on the Court’s case-law 214
January 2018
Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia (communicated case) - 16812/17
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Dispute over ownership of shares in television broadcasting company: communicated
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Impartial tribunal
Independent tribunal
Dispute over ownership of shares in television broadcasting company: communicated
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Dispute over ownership of shares in television broadcasting company: communicated
Article 18
Restrictions for unauthorised purposes
Dispute over ownership of shares in television broadcasting company: communicated
The first applicant (Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd – “Rustavi 2”) is a popular national television channel in Georgia and the second applicant (TV Company Sakartvelo Ltd – “TV Sakartvelo”) is a media company owned by the third and fourth applicants, who are private individuals.
The 2012 parliamentary election in Georgia resulted in a victory for the Georgian Dream Coalition (GDC) over the outgoing government that had been formed by the United National Movement (UNM). The applicants allege that both during and after a highly polarised campaign the GDC and its leaders voiced threats against political opponents, with Rustavi 2 being a primary target.
In 2015, K.K., a previous owner of Rustavi 2, brought a civil action against all four applicants alleging that he had been coerced into selling his shares many years earlier by high-ranking State officials when the former UNM government was still in power. K.K. was granted interim injunctions freezing Rustavi 2’s assets and shares and TV Sakartvelo’s assets. The injunctions were upheld on appeal. In the main proceedings, to which only the second, third and fourth applicants were party, the Georgian Supreme Court, sitting as the final court of appeal and deciding the case anew, held that K.K. had been coerced into selling his shares in breach of Article 85 of the Civil Code and that the sale agreements should be set aside.
In the Convention proceedings, the first applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1, 10 and 18 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the continued application of the interim injunction freezing its company assets was arbitrary, disproportionate and represented a hidden attempt to silence the television channel. The first applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of a lack of impartiality and independence in the injunction proceedings before the Supreme Court. The second, third and fourth applicants make similar complaints (under Article 6 § 1 and 18 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) in respect of the main proceedings.
Communicated under Articles 6 § 1, 10 and 18 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy