The Georgian NGO “Young Barristers” responds to the decision, made by the Constitutional Court of Georgia on November 13, 2015. According to the decision, those provisions of the Article 198 and 271 of the Civil Procedures Code, which regulate establishment of the interim management as a measures for securing a claim.       

Archil Kaikatsishvili, the Head of the organization, considers, that the society should pay attention to the fact, that the Court terminated operation of the disputed regulations only towards one particular group of legal entities – media resources: mass communications, printed and electronic media. The protocol of the court hearing shows, that the Court terminated interim management for only such legal entities, and it is still active for the other types of entities. There has been no practice yet, when the court suspends operation of the legal act with respect to one particular group instead of its suspension towards everyone to whom it may apply. Besides, the plaintiff, TV Channel “Georgia” demanded general termination of the legal act.  

Young Barristers considers, that the Court has not provided legal justification of the decision and the provided discussion offered by the court is not relevant and rises numbers of questions. As it is determined by the court decision: “Effective management of the broadcasting company, increase of its rating requires creation of the products fitting society’s demands and requirements. In such circumstances, interim management, which aims to secure the property, will significantly undermine effectiveness of the TV channel management.” It is not clear, how did the court manage to determine the level of customization of the products offered by the TV channel to the demands and requirements of the society. Moreover, when numbers of NGOs and the representatives of the political opposition had severely criticized justification of Tbilisi Civil Court judgment of November 5, 2015 since it had emphasized the necessity of the fair and objective reporting on behalf of the channel.

Young Barristers also wanders, why the Constitutional court didn’t terminate operation of the law generally, for all to whom it might apply? If the constitutional court regarded the interim management as a possible threat, then why it was applied only to the narrow group of legal entities and excluded other types of entities who might also face the problem, (the same threat), in a discriminatory manner?

Young Barristers appeals to the Constitutional Court of Georgia for the further clarification of the following issues: What makes the Constitutional Court of Georgia claim, that there are no precedents of   assigning interim management as a security measure in relation of other civil disputes? It is also very important to explain, why does the Constitutional Court refuse to discuss the possibility of managing company by current management in a manner that will devaluate the price of the company and affect its owners interests? Is the decision of the Constitutional Court relevantly justified with regard to the right to the fair trial in order not to violate right on the property?

We consider it relevant to note, that it is one and the same board who considers the claims concerning to Rustavi 2 case. However, there are 2 different boards existing in the Constitutional Court System. This fact makes the organization think, that the case is deliberately sent to the same judges, who are “charged” with certain tasks.