Dispute – Defamation / Infringement of Honor and Dignity (Media Dispute) – n.a. VS television company ”TV Pirveli”, Nodar Meladze, Maka Andronikashvili
Case description:
Nugzar Alugishvili is bringing a dispute against the television company “TV Pirveli”, the author of its programme “Nodar Meladze’s Saturday”, and the author of the report, seeking compensation for defamation, injury to honour and dignity, and reputational damage. The basis of the dispute is a report aired on 25 December 2021 entitled “Stewards of Irakli Gharibashvili”, in which, according to the claimant, materially false, unsubstantiated, and damaging information was disseminated about his person and activities.
In the report, Nugzar Alugishvili is presented as a so-called “steward” of the family of the Prime Minister of Georgia and as the formal owner of various business assets, whereas, according to the claimant’s position, this information is entirely unfounded, devoid of factual basis, and intended to damage his reputation. In addition, the programme uses offensive terminology, including derogatory nicknames, which goes beyond the standards of journalistic ethics and objective reporting.
The claimant states that during the preparation and dissemination of the report, the principle of balance was violated – despite numerous attempts, his representatives were not given the opportunity to present their position on air or submit counter-evidence. According to the claimant, this circumstance demonstrates the bias of the report and a pre-determined editorial stance.
Within the dispute, particular attention is also given to issues of the protection of privacy and commercial confidentiality. According to the claimant, a group of journalists unlawfully entered private property and attempted to obtain and disclose information related to companies’ financial condition, loans, and other confidential data, which constitutes commercial secrecy, and whose disclosure causes serious reputational and economic damage.
The report also discusses companies linked to the claimant’s family; however, according to the claimant, the information disseminated by the media regarding their ownership and activities does not correspond to reality and is based solely on assumptions and unverified sources. Furthermore, the report does not present either direct or indirect evidence to substantiate the allegations related to the alleged affiliation with political figures.
In addition, the dissemination of the disputed report led to wide public resonance, including negative comments and bullying against the claimant on the internet, which significantly damaged his business reputation and personal dignity.
The claimant requests a retraction of the disseminated information, a finding that the defamatory statements are false, compensation for the moral and reputational damage suffered, as well as a legal assessment of the violated journalistic standards by the media.
Outcome:
The case is currently under active litigation.