Judgment Ramishvili v. Georgia - failure to protect defence lawyer's reputation against clergyman's accusations on live television

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 031 (2026)   03.02.2026   Georgian courts failed to protect high-profile defence lawyer’s reputation   against clergyman’s accusations on live television   In today’s Chamber judgment1 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.   Principal facts   The applicant, Mikheil Ramishvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Tbilisi. He   is well-known as the defence counsel in various high-profile criminal cases in Georgia.   In September 2017 he was representing the interests of the defendant in a case concerning the   attempted murder of the Patriarch’s personal secretary, also known as “the Cyanide case”, and was   invited to participate in a live television programme. During the televised interview the anchor   telephoned a prominent clergyman of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Father I., who was also a   witness for the prosecution. Father I. referred to Mr Ramishvili as an “informer” and “provocateur”   who fed information to the secret services.   Mr Ramishvili subsequently brought a civil defamation claim against the clergyman, maintaining that   the latter’s statements had damaged his professional reputation. The Tbilisi City Court first found in   his favour.   This decision was, however, overturned by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, which ruled in particular that   the statements in question had been Father I.’s personal opinions which contributed to an important   public discussion at the time and that Mr Ramishvili was expected to tolerate them, given his status   as a public figure.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any   party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers   whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the   referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   The Supreme Court ultimately upheld this decision in June 2023, also finding that Mr Ramishvili had   not provided sufficient evidence to refute Father I.’s allegations.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human   Rights, Mr Ramishvili complained that the national courts had refused to protect his professional   reputation against the unconfirmed, public accusations made against him by Father I.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 February 2024.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jolien Schukking (the Netherlands), President,   Lado Chanturia (Georgia),   Lorraine Schembri Orland (Malta),   Anja Seibert-Fohr (Germany),   Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Portugal),   Anne Louise Bormann (Denmark),   Sebastian Răduleţu (Romania),   and also Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Firstly, the Court noted that Father I.’s statements had been made in the context of a debate on a   matter of public interest, namely an ongoing high-profile murder case (the “Cyanide case”) which had   prompted discussion on the Orthodox Church of Georgia in general and issues within the Patriarchy   in particular.   Mr Ramishvili himself was, moreover, a public figure, who had voluntarily exposed himself to public   scrutiny as defence counsel in high-profile criminal cases. The Court therefore considered that he had   to show a higher level of tolerance than would be expected of a non-public figure.   The Court went on to note that Father I. had accused Mr Ramishvili of misconduct, or at the very least   a breach of legal ethical norms. Those were serious allegations and, according to the Court’s settled   case-law, the more serious an allegation was, the more solid its factual basis had to be. However,   neither higher court had examined whether there had been a sufficient factual basis to call   Mr Ramishvili a “planted provocateur” in the Cyanide case. Both courts had simply concluded that any   opinion (“value judgment”) had absolute protection under national law.   Nor had the courts established whether there had been sufficient factual basis for the allegation that   Mr Ramishvili had fed information to the secret services in another high-profile murder case (known   as the “Girgvliani case”). Mr Ramishvili had submitted evidence in court showing that he had acted   professionally in the relevant proceedings, whereas Father I. had not corroborated his accusations at   all.   Indeed, the Supreme Court had placed the burden of proof on Mr Ramishvili to rebut the accusations   against him, despite his submissions, the seriousness of the allegations and the lack of any established   factual basis for them.   The Court therefore considered that the Georgian 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 Father I.’s freedom   of expression, on the other, in violation of Article 8.   2 Just satisfaction (Article 41)   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 judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.   Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.   Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.   Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   Claire Windsor (tel: + 33 3 88 41 24 01)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3