Tbilisi City Court Judge Liana Kajashvili has fully upheld the civil lawsuit filed by Georgian Dream propagandist film director Goga Khaindrava against the critical TV broadcaster Formula TV.
The court ordered “Shabatis Formula” to retract the “materially false statements containing information damaging to the claimant’s reputation, honour and dignity” broadcast in its report. It also ordered the broadcaster to pay GEL 10,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary (moral) damages.
“What happened is, in principle, exactly what we had expected. The court fully upheld Goga Khaindrava’s claim and ordered us to pay compensation for moral damages. Under the current circumstances in this judicial system, this was certainly not surprising, given the situation that has been created,” said Formula’s lawyer, Eto Katamadze.
According to Katamadze, the broadcaster will exhaust all available domestic legal remedies and will most likely continue the case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The lawyer also said that the judge provided no explanation during the hearing as to what the ruling was based on.
In addition to the civil proceedings, the Prosecutor’s Office is also investigating the case involving Formula TV. According to the lawyer, the Tbilisi City Court’s ruling serves as an incentive for the Prosecutor’s Office to ensure “this case does not end here” and to continue the investigation.
The Prosecutor’s Office has said it launched an investigation into the possible commission of a crime by Formula TV against Goga Khaindrava under Article 373, Part 1 of the Criminal Code, which concerns false denunciation. According to the prosecution, the investigation was initiated following a complaint filed by Khaindrava’s lawyers.
The case stems from a “Shabatis Formula” report based on a confidential source, which alleged that “in 2016–2017, Goga Khaindrava, in coordination with the State Security Service, brought citizens of India and Pakistan into Georgia in exchange for payment.”
Both Khaindrava and the Prosecutor’s Office maintain that the journalistic report is sufficient grounds to initiate criminal proceedings for “false denunciation.”
