According to the letter sent from the Tbilisi city hall, they don’t review the prohibition of radio broadcast as their responsibility and don’t consider that the decision of limited expression and freedom of expression as their duty. The city hall states in the letter: “in Georgia, the state provided all the company’s radios smooth functioning and in accordance with the law, every citizen has the full opportunity to use any radio service without limiting, including at the time of passenger transportation. In addition the requirement of the law does not imply a commitment to private ownership to carry out the distribution of information in his own vehicle. Otherwise all vehicle owners (including for example the taxi driver) must be connected to a radio and provide of hearing all the news, even if they do not want to. (style is kept)
according to the city hall announcement, the winner company’s decision in tender, on the one hand it justifies , on the other hand it diverges and this issue is due to the high public interest, when one of the position’s strong support in the social-political situation, would overview the issue of trustness towards the city government.
We ”Young Barristes” remind the representatives of the private company that the constitution of Georgia is the rule of law of the state, all other acts should conform to the constitution. The decision of “Tbilisi mini-bus” to forbid broadcast of radio channels in mini-busses of Tbilisi violates directly the article 24 of the constitution of Georgia, article 10 of the Europe convention of human rights protection and the article 19 of UN international pact of civil and political rights of 1966. We consider that the decision of the private company represents fundamental limitation in the sphere of freedom and information expression and humiliates the highest kindness of the citizens-to get and spread information without censorship.
The transport union did not have right to make such contract with the independent legal person about advertising service, which would lead to restriction of access to information for citizens. Devoid of logic is statements which turned out that the voice of radio prevents to the adverticements placed on the screen in mini-busses. As it turned out, the society don’t know opinions of independent expert’s which would conform a discrepancy of ability, if technically there is a gap between the sound of radio and advertising, it is necessary to change in the contract of the advertising provision to supply for passengers only in accordance with the principles of image resolution. When the question is between protection of freedom expression and a private commercial company’s interest, the Europian experience shows that the preference is given to freedom expression.
“Young barristers appeal to the Tbilisi city hall that the winner private company in state competition of 2011 is responsible for the availability in charge of the municipal transport-to respond to the decision of the transport union of the “Tbilisi mini-bus” and protect freedom of expression and information related to the national and international laws.
When the question is- protection of freedom expression or a private company’s commercial interest, European experience shows that the preference is given to freedom expression. In Georgia, adoption of “must carry” showed that a priority for the state should be freedom of expression and information.
