According to the published research of the “Young Barristers”, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia - Giorgi Papuashvili did not answer 12 public questions, which is connected to the legal and factual issues of living in the illegally deprived house in Adjara after the "Rose Revolution".

The “Young Barristers”, in the preparation of monitoring process, addressed to the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, in June of 2013. The issues raised by the organization concerned the following circumstances regarding the case:

1. Did you have any information about Roland Bladadze, in particular, information about the prosecution and crime alleged by the State Prosecutor ? What information did you possess about the former owner of the real property before it was handed to you due to the President’s decree?
2. What is your position after the Adjara A/R Prosecutor’s Office adopted a resolution on the termination of the criminal prosecution against Roland Bladadze, do you find yourself facing the legal dilemma – how legitimate it is to own and live in the property, when the politically motivated charge has been nullified for the former good faith owner?
3. What is your attitude towards the members of the Constitutional Court who refused to accept the property confiscated by the State? If your colleagues – distinguished judges with highly professional biographies refuse to take in possession the property confiscated by the State, how justified is the decision of the Chairman of the Constitutional Court to live in the former property of Roland Bladadze against whom no accusation has been proved.
4. Do you think that after the Adjara revolution in 2004, selective justice was applied against Roland Bladze? Whether the case was politically-motivated against him as a former team member of the Adjarian commander and as an unacceptable figure for the new government which came to power as a result of the “Rose Revolution” 2003?  Otherwise, how would you explain Adjara A/R Prosecutor’s resolution of April 12, 2013 on the termination of the criminal prosecution against Roland Bladadze?
5. Do you think that the questions on the Roland Bladadze’s case against the chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, which directly or indirectly connects you with the disputed real property, will influence the degree of independence of the Constitutional Court as a whole? Is the existing decision related to the credibility and impartiality of the Constitutional Court of Georgia as far as you are high representative of the Constitutional Court.
6. What is your position as to another factor in Roland Bladadze’s case, when you are party to it.  In particular, how legal was the appropriation of the supporting building owned by Roland Bladadze, namely agricultural storeroom, garage area equaling to 36,63 sq.m., main entrance – 13 sq.m. and attic extention – 59.31 sq.m. of total – 62.31 sq.m.?
7. How do you assess legality and legitimacy of owning a garage, belonging to Roland Bladadze when ownership on the real property belonged to Roland Bladadze and garage has not been seized by the  State. Not a single decision of the Court mentions confiscation of the garage.
8. You serve as a chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, when the law and authority imposes a higher standard of responsibility. Therefore, your view and position is important. How do you assess illegal confiscation of the property of nationals, business representatives and various groups by the government over the 2003-2012.
9. How do you assess granting of the property by the State at the symbolic price?
10. How do you assess the initiative to set up the Commission on finding Miscarriages of Justice which, one’s point of view, was supposed to have been under the competence of the Constitutional Court of Georgia?
11. As a Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia and senior legal specialist, how do you assess the decisions of the Court on Roland Bladadze’s Case?  In particular, the decisions where you are involved as a party?
12. As a Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia and legal specialist how do you think to eradicate the problem and return illegally confiscated and transferred property by the State to the citizens?

Only the Organizational Department of the Constitutional Court responded to questions posed by the “Young Barristers” and noted, that the raised issues did not fall within the competence of the Constitutional Court of Georgia defined by Georgian legislation.

For more information, the former president Mikheil Saakashvili transferred the deprived property of Roland Bladadze to the Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia - Giorgi Papuashvili in 2007, who until now lives in the house of Roland Bladadze with his family. Accordingly, research best delivers the factual and legal side of the case, which is a continuation of prominent cases of the deprived properties in Georgia, in 2003-2012.

The organization, in the boundaries of implemented monitoring, has already appeales to the executive, legislative and  judicial authorities of Georgia with package of recommendations. The “Young Barristers” started the work on the research in February 2014. The research has already been sent to the diplomatic representatives in Georgia, to the Constitutional Courts of 20 European countries, to the Venice Commission and international organizations.