Tbilisi, Gorgasali Street 24a
(+995 32) 2 405 087
Journal Iustitia
Legal disputes regarding defamation are always characterised by specific individualism, which is demonstrated by the circumstance that two disputes with seemingly similar content (taking into account the circumstances) may lead to different outcomes.
The reason for this is the understanding of the context. Context is a main criterion, based on which a statement may be considered defamatory, or vice versa, a person’s freedom of expression may not be restricted for the same statement. Therefore, the proper consideration of the context is crucially important for qualifying a statement as defamatory. This point of view has been established in practice. Thus, it is important to consider the matter of context both in terms of international (the European Court of Human Rights) and local judicial
practice. Moreover, in the case of defamation disputes, the legislation obliges courts to rely on the practice of the said international court.
Scientific works
1. Jorbenadze S., Legal Scope of Freedom of Disclosure of Personal Correspondence in Social
Networks, Lado Chanturia 55, Anniversary Edition, Tbilisi, 2018.
2. Jorbenadze S., Social Media Law, Tbilisi, 2019.
3. Rogal Laura, Anonymity in Social Media, Arizona Summit Law Review, Vol. 7:61, 2013
Judicial practice of the Constitutional Court of Georgia
4. Decision No 1/1/468 of 11 April 2012 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in ‘the Public
Defender of Georgia v. the Parliament of Georgia’.
5. Decision No 1/3/534 of 11 June 2013 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in ‘Citizen of
Georgia Tristan Mamagulashvili v. the Parliament of Georgia’
Judicial practice of the common courts of Georgia
6. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, 3.4.2012, No ას-1477-1489-2011.
7. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, 9.1.2014, No ას-1559-1462-2012.
8. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, 1.10.2014, No ას-179-172-2012.
9. Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia, 30.9.2015, No ას-1052-1007-2014.
10. Ruling of Tbilisi City Court, 30.11.2018, No 2/34293-18.
11. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, 5.7.2019, No ას-847-791-2017.
12. Decision of Tbilisi City Court, 17.12.2019, No 2/6328-19.
13. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, 6.4.2020, No ას-1366-2019.
14. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, 5.3.2021, No ას-810-2019.
15. Resolution of Tbilisi City Court, 29.10.2021, No 4/6707-21.
16. Decision of Tbilisi City Court, 20.12.2022, No 2/19427-20.
17. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, 6.2.2023, No ას-549-2022.
18. Decision of Tbilisi City Court, 2.3.2023, No 2/38600-22.
19. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, 24.3.2023, No ას-1498-2022.
20. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, 30.3.2023, No ას-1373-2022.
21. Ruling of the Tbilisi Court of Appeals, 27.6.2023, No 2ბ/754-23
Case law of the European Court of Human Rights
22. Lingens v. Austria, 8.7.1986, No 9815/82.
23. Hertel v. Switzerland, 25.8.1998, No 59/1997/843/1049.
24. Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway, 20.5.1999, No 21980/93.
25. I.A. v. Turkey, 13.12.2005, No 42571/98.
26. Giniewski v. France, 31.1.2006, No 64016/00.
27. Stoll v. Switzerland, 25.4.2006, No 69698/01.
28. Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom, 22.4.2013, No 48876/08.
29. Peruzzi v.Italy, 30.6.2015, No 39294/09.
30. Pentikäinen v. Finland, 20.10.2015, No 11882/10.
31. M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, 28.6.2018, No 60798/10 and No 65599/10.
32. Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, 4.5.2021, No 41139/15, No 41146/15.
33. Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary, 20.1.2022, No 201/17.
Practice of the Georgian National Communications Commission
34. Decision of the Georgian National Communications Commission, 29.4.2021, No გ-21-16/268.
35. Decision of the Georgian National Communications Commission, 23.8.2023, No გ-22-03/2096