Constitutional Court delivered a ruling on the case “Irakli Matchutadze vs Parliament of Georgia"
Constitutional Court delivered a ruling on the case “Irakli Matchutadze vs Parliament of Georgia"
On December 23, 2022 the Plenum of the Constitutional Court of Georgia delivered a ruling on the case “Irakli Matchutadze vs Parliament of Georgia“(Constitutional Claim 1583).
The disputed norm set the age limit of 50 years for serving as a bailiff at the Constitutional Court. According to the complainant, reaching the age of 50, in itself, does not lead to the deterioration of a person's physical or health condition to such an extent that he/she is unable to fully perform the functions of a constitutional court bailiff, which excludes the rational and logical link of the blanket restriction established by the disputed norm with respect to possible legitimate goals. Based on the above, the complainant believed that the impugned norm was discriminatory and, at the same time, contradicted the constitutional right to the unhindered exercise of public office.
The complainant noted that the contested regulation had the identical content as the norm declared unconstitutional by the judgement of the Constitutional Court of Georgia as of December 14, 2018 No. 3/2/767,1272, and petitioned to declare the disputed norm invalid without considering the merits of the case.
The respondent noted that it acknowledged the constitutional standard established by the judgement of the Constitutional Court of Georgia as of December 14, 2018 No. 3/2/767,1272. The disputed norm had the identical content as the norm declared unconstitutional by the named decision. Accordingly, the respondent admitted the constitutional claim N1583.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the disputed norm was similar to the content of the norm declared as unconstitutional by the judgement №3/2/767,1272 and regulated an essentially identical legal relationship. The only difference was the fact that the disputed norm in the case under consideration established the upper limit of work age for the bailiff of the Constitutional Court, while the norm declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in the past established the same upper limit of age for service as the bailiff of the common courts.
With the judgement №3/2/767,1272 issued on December 14, 2018 by the Constitutional Court it was ruled that reaching 50 years does not mean deterioration of physical and health condition so that a person fails to fully perform the bailiff’s functions at the court of law. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court considered that the blanket restriction established by the disputed norm was not logically connected with the legitimate public goal named by the respondent, namely, to ensure the security of the common courts and the High Council of Justice, and to strengthen the proper and effective functioning of the court’s bailiffs’ service. In addition, the irrationality of the blanket age restriction was additionally indicated by the fact that the decision on the suitability of a person for the position could be made based on the individual assessment of the skills and physical abilities of the court bailiff.
The Constitutional Court noted that the demands placed on the bailiffs employed in different, even qualitatively and functionally closely related, state institutions, taking into account different factual or legal circumstances, and above all, depending on the specifics of their activities, may be different and, therefore, one and the same, and even if the same right is limited by a similar legal means, there might be a need to evaluate the constitutionality of this limitation independently of each other. At the same time, the Constitutional Court of Georgia, based on the analysis of the functions of the common court and the Constitutional Court bailiffs, considered that the issue discussed in the given case had already been decided by the Constitutional Court and the named difference did not give rise to the need to check the contested regulation on the merits. In addition, during the course of the case, no additional interest or legitimate goal was identified, which would put on the agenda, based on the disputed norm, the need for an independent assessment of the age limitation of the activity of the Constitutional Court's bailiff.
Based on all of the above, the disputed norm was considered as the overriding norm of the judgement of the Constitutional Court №3/2/767,1272 of December 14, 2018 and was declared invalid by the ruling of the preliminary session.
Subject of the Dispute: Constitutionality of the Sentence 3 of the Paragraph 2 of the Article 321 the Organic Law of Georgia on the “Constitutional Court of Georgia“ with the Paragraph 1 of the Article 11 and Sentence 2 of the Paragraph 1 of the Article 25 of the Constitution of Georgia.
