the member of the High Council of Justice of Georgia, Eva Gotsiridze, talked about the events unfolding around Rustavi 2. As a response to the request of Tabula TV’s director to name a single precedent which allows judges of the European Court of Human Rights to make a decision about the media which would force members to change their editorial policy, Ms Gotsiridze said: "I will tell you many precedents when such publications, issuing limitless insults against judges, were restricted. A good example can be the case of Hrico against Slovakia when criticism against a judge was restricted in order to protect the impartiality of the court."

verified the accuracy of this statement.

of Hrico against Slovakia on 20 October 2004.

This journal had published three articles about court trials in Slovakia concerning libel cases in 1994 and 1995. In particular, the court dispute was between the Minister of Culture of Slovakia, Dušan Slobodnik (who later become a member of the Parliament), and the Slovak poet and publicist, L’ubomir Feldek. Mr Feldek accused Minister Slobodnik of having a fascist past.

On 1 April 1994, an article, entitled "A Shameful Decision of the Supreme Court," was published in Andrej Hrico's journal. The article assessed the court trial as a tragi-comic farce. It also stated that L’ubomir Feldek had never said that the Minister of Culture of Slovakia was a criminal or a murderer. He, as a member of a free society, merely expressed his opinion that Minister Slobodnik had close relations with individuals who were accused of murder. In a democratic society, such a person should not have held a ministerial position.

The article also said that instead of resigning, Mr Slobodnik decided to protect his rights. After considering the case, Bratislava City Court judged in favour of L’ubomir Feldek which set a good precedent for a newly created democratic state and warned all politicians that their past might become a topic of public interest. The Supreme Court, however, made a completely opposite decision. Mr Feldek was required to pay SKK 200,000 (Slovak koruna) to Mr Slobodnik and publish a letter of apology. As the article said, the Supreme Court’s decision warned all Slovak citizens that the morality of politicians was not to be discussed by the public and that they were advised to remain silent.

On 12 August 1994, the journal also published an interview with the former head of the Constitutional Court of Slovakia, entitled "Slovakia is Being Ruled by Legalised Chaos," concerning this issue. Another article in the same edition, entitled "We Shall Meet in Strasbourg Very Soon (Even Death Cannot Separate the Slobodnik-Feldek Couple)," was published in the journal on 16 June 1995, assessing the decision of the Supreme Court as a legal farce, libel and a satirical-insulting document.

On 20 September 1995, the Chairman of the Supreme Court of Slovakia addressed Bratislava City Court following his ruling in favour of Dušan Slobodnik and in response to the heavy criticism in Andrej Hrico’s journal which followed. The Chairman claimed that Mr Hrico’s articles were ruining his reputation and demanded that the journal’s editor apologise for his actions and pay him a compensatory amount for moral damage incurred. According to the Chairman’s statement, these articles violated his honour as a citizen and the honour of his profession as well with his authority as a Supreme Court judge having especially suffered. As a response to this, Mr Hrico explained that the author of the articles merely informed the public of the facts and that the articles contained legally admissible criticism against public figures.

On 3 July 1996, the court ordered the journal to publish an appropriate letter of apology and pay compensation. After addressing the country’s domestic courts, the journal took its complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. The editor explained that the court’s decision restricted the freedom of expression provided for by Article 10 of the Convention of the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights’ decision on the aforementioned case states that the media plays a vital role in the functioning of a democratic society. It is the job of the media to cover all information and ideas which happen to fall in public focus. However, the media should also mind the constraints, especially in regard to the reputation of individuals, their rights and classified information. The decision also says that Article 10 of the Convention of the European Court of Human Rights addresses the issue of obtaining and expressing information as well. A journalist is authorised to use provocative methods and exaggeration in order to obtain information. The decision states that there are some cases of public interest where the media is authorised to obtain information in ways which are compatible with their duties and responsibilities. This includes asking the types of questions which concern the functioning of the judicial system. On the other hand, it is vital for the court to have public trust in order to function properly.

The European Court of Human Rights clarified that the approach adopted by the Supreme Court of Slovakia was incompatible with the principles set out in Article 10 of the Convention of the European Court of Human Rights. Hence, the European Court of Human Rights decisively concluded that the Slovak court had violated the aforementioned article.

The European Court of Human Rights put the following obligations upon the defence (the state of Slovakia):

• EUR 1,250 for material damage
• EUR 1,000 for non-material damage
• EUR 780 for other expenses

The European Court of Human Rights made its decision on the case of Hrico against Slovakia on 20 October 2004. The decision says that that the approach adopted by the Supreme Court of Slovakia on this case was incompatible with the principles set out in Article 10 of the Convention of the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights ordered the state of Slovakia to pay a total of EUR 3,030 as compensation for various material or non-material damages. Hence, the usage of this case by Eva Gotsiridze to prove that in order to protect the impartiality of the Slovak court the European Court of Human Rights restricted criticism towards the judge is not relevant.