On 18 July the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) passed its judgement on the ownership struggles at the Georgian TV station Rustavi 2. According to the Court’s judgment, there were no violations of any article of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case. Also the rights of Rustavi 2 and its owners were not violated at the Georgian courts.

“The Court, unanimously, rejected the remaining complaints brought by Rustavi 2’s owners as well as all those brought by Rustavi 2 (the first applicant) itself as inadmissible, including in particular their allegations that the proceedings had been a state-led campaign to silence the television channel. Given those inadmissibility findings, the Court decided, unanimously, to lift the interim measure under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court indicating to the Georgian government that it should among other things suspend enforcement of the decision of March 2017,” read the official verdict. Moreover, the Strasbourg Court suspended a temporary measure, which means that the mechanism of suspending the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia will no longer exist. Accordingly, the TV company will be re-registered to shareholder Kibar Khalvashi, as it was decided by the courts on three instances in Georgia. Rustavi 2 TV can appeal the ruling at the Grand Chamber of Strasbourg.

The rightful owner of the company Kibar Khalvashi had already named his lawyer Paata Salia as the new Director-General of Rustavi 2 who will replace the current Director-General of the TV company Nika Gvaramia. Khalvashi also stated that he does not plan to keep Gavramia around at the TV station. “I am not going to change the editorial policy of Rustavi 2. The changes will only apply to one person – Nika Gvaramia, who was appointed to this post by the regime which took away my company. Gvaramia will no longer be able to continue his activities at Rustavi 2 neither as a journalist nor as a Director-General,” he said.

Gavramia stated that the reason for such a decision was an inappropriate interpretation of the case, outlining his dissatisfaction with the verdict. “It would be unfair of me not to note that the given decision was certainly shocking and absolutely unimaginable,” he said. He also stated that he does not intend to leave his post before the completion of all the relevant procedures of the ownership transfer.