The Georgian NGO Young Barristers publishes a special statement of the Bladadze’s family about the disputed property confiscated from them.

„Me like others, who were forced to leave their country as a result of the intimidation and violence on behalf of Saakashvili’s Government, now live with the hope, that the new Government will restore the justice. Despite the fact, the society is already well aware about the fact of GIorgi Papuashvili’s family residence in the property confiscated from Roland Bladadze, yet, we would like to pay your attention to some main circumstances related to the case. In 2004, after the “Rose Revolution”, the only real estate owned by me in Adjara, was illegally and unreasonably confiscated from my ownership leaving me and my family, my juvenile children without a shelter. In 2007, the President of Georgia gave the disputed property to Giorgi Papuashvili, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, for symbolic price of 1000 GEL. Our lawyers, conclusions of different international and local organizations have proved, that unscrupulous estate buyer. Evidences indicate, that both, the Government and personally Giorgi Papuashvili knew, that the confiscated property was disputed and they shouldn’t have disposed it. We appealed to the President of Georgia on May 11, 2007 and informed him, that the Government intended to alienate the property. We had noted in the letter, that they were going to sell the property to exactly Giorgi Papuashvili. This still can be checked in the Administration of the President of Georgia. My wife and juvenile children were assaulted by the police officers during the process of eviction. We were left without the only house owned in Georgia.     

Since October 1, 2012, Bidzina Ivanishvili’s Government provided an opportunity for us to appeal to the Prosecutor’s Office and restore our rights. In April, 2013, a criminal proceedings against me was stopped due to the lack of the signs of crime. As a result, I got back to my homeland, saw my relatives and visited my parent’s grave for the first time. After this, I took active steps to find legal remedies to return my property back. In March 2015, Giorgi Papuashvili tried to get rid and cell disputed property, however, the buyer, Giorgi Levidze refused to purchase it. I really thought, that the President of the Constitutional Court of Georgia would be the first, who would return the property to us, or transfer it to the Government ownership, and the latter would make further fair decision regarding the property, but I was wrong. Unfortunately,  neither the prompt investigations were implemented with regard of my property confiscation. The issue of the legality of confiscation is currently under consideration in the special Department of the Prosecutors Office of Georgia, while investigation about misappropriation of the garage, owned by our family is in progress in the Prosecutor’s Office in Adjara.   

I understand the reasons why it is impossible to take effective and decisive steps to return my property – this will be regarded as a negative action against the President of an independent institution, the Constitutional Court of Georgia on behalf of the Government. Yet, we think, that protection of the equality before the law is another significant challenge for the Government. On the other hand, this is an important challenge for Giorgi Papuashvili himself, since social trust in him has been significantly reduced due to the situation mentioned above. However, Giorgi Papuashvili didn’t appear strong enough to return my property. Moreover, according to his recent statements, the President of the Constitutional Court is misleading the media, society and NGOs and doing his best to convince international society, that each and every oh his property is legally owned by him. Such statements cannot be fair, since he is now living in the house, illegally confiscated from my family. 

I would also like to comment on the issue of systematic protests organized in front of GIorgi Papuashvili’s place of residence. Obviously, the freedom of speech and expression is constitutional right and some groups are trying to express their views. Yet, we are not engaged in those protests, we are distancing ourselves from all kinds of actions, which might directly or indirectly impede functioning of the court and endangers safety and freedom of the Papuashvili’s family members. The way chosen by us and our legal representatives is completely legal and is not violent. In order to avoid all kinds of misunderstandings, we request all interested parties to recheck every information or evidence concerning the case with Young Barristers, whose position can be regarded as mine in the public space. 

In the end, I would like to note, that I refused to appeal to the European Court of human Rights only because I believe in the promise, made t=by the Government and I do believe that they will manage to restore justice. But the objective of my statement is totally different. Giorgi Papuashvili is trying to prove his innocence through his international image. During 9-12 September, Constitutional Court of Georgia has hosted really important international meeting in Batumi. I am honestly happy, that Georgia will be the first EU non-member country, becoming the Head of the Congress of European Constitutional Courts. Such recognition is the country’s achievement and the result of its European policy. However, Giorgi Papuashvili is trying to use this fact for his own favor. Unfortunately, property rights are so unfamiliar to the first constitutionalist of the county. Again, I would like to refer to Giorgi Papuashvili, with whom I have no personal problem, to return my house. Besides, we appeal to  Giorgi Badashvili, the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia, Irakli Gharibashvili, the Prime Minister of the country and Davit Usufashvili, the Chairman of the Parliament of Georgia with the request of providing state support with regard of my case in order to promote adoption of the legal decision in a timely manner”- states Roland Bladadze and thanked all the journalists for showing public interest over the case.