The Liège Court of Appeal condemns the current Minister of Mobility for remarks made against billionaire Belgo-Ouzbèk during the “Kazakhgate” parliamentary commission of inquiry.
Lhe 20th civil chamber of the Liège Court of Appeal condemned on January 28 the Minister of Mobility and former deputy (Ecolo) Georges Gilkinet, learned Thursday The evening. The Belgo-Uzbek businessman Patokh Chodiev condemned the former member of the “Kazakhgate” commission of inquiry for having caused him “moral damage” through three statements in the press. The Court imposes a symbolic fine of 1 euro on Georges Gilkinet for this non-pecuniary damage. The Court of Appeal, however, rejects any material damage on the part of the billionaire: “Patokh Chodiev does not produce any probative document capable of establishing, even if only a plausibility of the reality of an attack on his heritage”, declared the stop. The Moscow resident also wanted the publication in the Belgian Official Gazette and in no less than 11 newspapers the judgment in his favor: request rejected.
In the first place, the Namur court had yet ruled in favor of the former environmentalist deputy. For the judges, the comments of Mr. Gilkinet fell under the scope of article 58 of the Constitution, which gives immunity to Parliamentarians in the exercise of their missions. Including in their investigative power. Between the defeat in Namur and the appeal in Liège, the plaintiff Chodiev narrowed down the disputed remarks to a list of four outings in the press. And invoked an attack on honor that would not be covered by parliamentary immunity.
The Court follows this reasoning for three of the four quotations blacklisted by the complainant. “Contrary to what Georges Gilkinet maintains, by the comments he made on three occasions (…), he did not content himself with expressing suspicions and asking questions within the framework of the right of inquiry. he benefits in his capacity as a Member of Parliament but has unambiguously accused Patokh Chodiev of active corruption, constituting a criminal offense. “
Asked about this conviction on appeal, Georges Gilkinet indicates that he “took note of this judgment. Which amazes us on the merits, since it departs quite clearly from the judgment of first instance. “With his lawyers, the Vice-Premier will” take the time to examine the follow-up to be given to it “.