Young Barristers appeals to the Venice Commission with an official letter requesting to provide relevant evaluation of the legitimacy of the activities of the President and judges of the Constitutional Court of Georgia concerning its decision of September 16, 2015.

Salome Goglidze, a lawyer with Young Barristers states, that that public society didn’t expect that the Constitutional Court of Georgia would publish its decision over the case “Citizen Giorgi Ugulava vs the Parliament of Georgia” through violation of law. Article 43 of the Organic Law of Georgia on the Constitutional Court of Georgia says, that “an act of the Constitutional Court shall be signed by all members of the Constitutional Court participating in the consideration of the case”. However, in the case mentioned above, the Court published its decision with only 8 signatures, instead of 9 of those judges participating in the consideration of cases; meaning the decision was made in violation of law. 

Salome Goglidze believes, that the legitimacy of the Constitutional Court decision, mentioned above, should be questioned. Georgia law experts note that such a decision has no analogue in any other country throughout the world. Taking into consideration that the decision of the constitutional court is final and can’t be appealed, it is even more important, that the evaluation by internationally recognized institution, such as Venice Commission, was available for the public society, especially when the Venice Commission is authorized to discuss the problems related to the activities of the constitutional courts’ and other democratic institutions. 

The letter raises questions concerning publication of the decision by the Constitutional Court of Georgia in relation with Merab Turava, the member of the Constitutional Court. In particular, whether the decision should have been made by 9 judges as it is determined by law, rather than by 8 of those taking part into consideration of the case; what is the position of the Venice Commission with regard to giving reasonable time to the judge (Merab Turava) for getting acquainted with the content of the Court draft decision, rather than requiring him to sign decision without relevant consideration; whether the judge of the Constitutional Court of Georgia should be entitled to make his/her decision over the case in the working, collegial environment, without any pressure, in the conditions free from any political influence or not and if the Venice Commission can see in the publication of this above mentioned decision an over plus of the political interests.  

Young Barristers hopes, that the Venice Commission will take into consideration high public interest towards the issue and provide relevant response.