It is extremely disturbing to witness the developments that have unfolded in the recent months around Rustavi 2 – a media outlet with the highest rating and a critical attitude to the current government, as a result of which the TV station faces a real danger of suspending its activity. Such a situation is particularly alarming in the run-up to the elections when the State – all the branches of the government – is obligated to ensure the existence of pluralist media in the state, which is a necessary precondition for fair elections.

There is a well-founded doubt that the main goal of the private legal dispute against Rustavi 2 is to interrupt or suspend the TV station’s activity. This doubt arises from the statements of high-ranking political officials. They have expressed their negative attitude and discontent with the activity of the critical TV station on numerous occasions. It should also be emphasized that Bidzina Ivanishvili has expressed interest in the issue of ownership of Rustavi 2 on many occasions, making statements about its "lawful” and "unlawful” owners. Accordingly, the impression is made that the information disseminated on October 1, 2015, about sequestration of the stakes of the company that owns Rustavi 2 is a logical continuation of the said interest.

On September 30, 2015, as part of the legal proceedings launched by Kibar Khalvashi, the Tbilisi City Court adopted a ruling on sequestration of the stakes of Sakartvelo LLC, which is the owner of the Rustavi 2 TV station. The sequestration concerns the stakes that have nothing in common with the ownership of Rustavi 2. At the same time, the company’s stakes in Rustavi 2 were sequestrated on the basis of the August 6, 2015 ruling of the Tbilisi City Court. Thus, as things stand today, all the stakes of Sakartvelo LLC – both those related and unrelated to the ownership of the Rustavi 2 TV station – have been sequestarted.

It is necessary to explain that sequestration is one of the forms of securing a claim. In accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia, a plauintiff’s application regarding the use of measures for securing a claim must indicate the circumstances that would complicate or make it impossible to enforce the court decision if measures for securing the claim are not taken.[1]

According to the same Code, sequestration, as one of the measures for securing a claim, may be imposed on property, securities or moneybelonging to the defendantand held by the defendant or another person.[2]

With the aim of securing the decision, the Tbilisi City Court, by the ruling of September 30, 2015, sequestrated property that belonged not to the defendant company, but to a company that owns the defendant company and is not connected with the claim. Thus, the court of the first instance neglected the essence of a measure for securing a claim. Specifically, as the sequestrated property was not connected with the defendant company, its alienation could not pose any danger to the enforcement of the court decision.

It should be taken into consideration that the plaintiff’s application to the Tbilisi City Court regarding sequestration of the stakes of Sakartvelo LLC is related to the decision of the said company’s owners to alienate their own stakes that had not been sequestrated by that time. Persons interested in the registration of a contract with such content applied to the Public Registry on September 29, 2015. According to the information disseminated by representatives of the Rustavi 2 TV station, the deal concluded regarding the property owned by the Sakartvelo TV station only envisaged increasing the charter capital of Rustavi 2 by the second party without imposing additional obligations, which, naturally, ruled out the danger to later enforcement of the decision for the purposes of securing the claim. Under such circumstances, it is obvious that the corresponding requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia were violated.

Due to this, the impression is made that, in the hands of the plaintiff and the court, sequestration has become a means for undertaking repressions and restricting financial resources for the Rustavi 2 TV station and, as a result, for interfering with its activity, the more so that the TV station is not legally entitled to take financial obligations. Therefore, according to representatives of Rustavi 2, the only means of receiving income was to attract foreign investments, which was envisaged in the contract of the Sakartvelo TV station on alienation of stakes. And after the ruling of September 30, 2015, this opportunity was also lost.

At the same time, the doubts are also deepened by the fact that on the basis of the September 29, 2015 application to the Public Registry regarding registration of the contract, already on September 30, 2015, a ruling was adopted on sequestration of the object of the said contract – the stakes of the Sakartvelo TV station.

In addition, representatives of the Rustavi 2 TV station, or the defendant company, have expressed concern several times against the judge reviewing the plaintiff’s application. The rulings of both August 6, 2015, and September 30, 2015, on the use of sequestration as a form of securing Kibar Khalvashi’s claim were adopted by the said judge.

In contrast with the aforementioned, the responsible agencies have not provided the civil society with plausible arguments and explanations that would dissipate the existing doubts.

It is important that the authorities realize that only diverse media landscape can ensure that all views and political perspectives are voiced. And the existence of free, independent, and pluralist media, together with the rule of law, is the unquestionable basis of development and strengthening of democracy.[3]

Georgian Democracy Initiative (GDI)

Media Development Foundation (MDF)

Transparency International Georgia (TI Georgia)

Georgia’s Reforms Associates (GRASS)

Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI)

[1]Part 1, Article 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia, Legislative Herald of Georgia No. 1106, 31/12/1997

[2]Subparagraph A, Part 2, Article 198 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia, Legislative Herald of Georgia No. 1106, 31/12/1997

[3]Windhoek Declaration on Promoting Independent and Pluralistic Media, 1991.