Ramishvili v. Georgia, No. 4100/24, ECtHR (Fourth Section), 3 February 2026

A violation of Article 8 ECHR arises from the inadequate balancing carried out by the national courts between freedom of expression and the protection of the applicant’s reputation, in relation to certain statements deemed damaging and classified as mere value judgments, without, however, verifying whether they had a sufficient factual basis.

Art. 8 ECHR

1. In assessing the justification of an impugned statement, a distinction must be drawn between statements of fact and value judgments, as the former are capable of proof whereas the latter are not susceptible of evidentiary demonstration. Requiring proof of the truth of a value judgment is impossible to satisfy and constitutes an interference with freedom of opinion, which forms an essential component of the right guaranteed by Article 10 ECHR. The classification of a statement as a value judgment or a statement of fact must take into account the circumstances of the case and the overall tone of the remarks; in this context, their connection to matters of public interest may constitute a relevant factor.

2. The positive obligation arising under Article 8 ECHR may, in certain circumstances, entail a duty on the State to adopt measures to ensure respect for private life even in the sphere of relations between private individuals, having regard to the interests at stake (including freedom of expression protected by Article 10 ECHR). In drawing the distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, national courts enjoy a margin of appreciation; however, even where a statement constitutes a value judgment, the proportionality of the interference may depend on the existence of a sufficient factual basis, in the absence of which the judgment may be regarded as excessive.

3. National courts are required to examine the applicant’s submissions, the seriousness of the allegations, and their factual basis. Moreover, the applicant cannot be burdened with an impossible standard of proof; the adjudicating authority must assess all the circumstances of the case, including the public or private nature of the debate and the impact of the statements on the parties’ private lives.