he Constitutional Court of Georgia Rules to Declare the Constitutional Submissions №1923, №1929 and №1931 Inadmissible
he Constitutional Court of Georgia Rules to Declare the Constitutional Submissions №1923, №1929 and №1931 Inadmissible
On February 12, 2026, the Plenum of the Constitutional Court of Georgia ruled to declare the Constitutional Submissions №1923, №1929 and №1931 inadmissible regarding the constitutionality of Part 4 of the Note to Article 166 and Part 4 of the Note to Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia.
According to the disputed rule, the fact of failure to pay the fine imposed for the commission of a first-time administrative offence, as provided for in Article 166 and Part 1 of Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia (regardless of the reasons for non-payment) automatically gave rise to the obligatory basis for administrative detention in case of repeated commission of the offences. According to the author of the constitutional submissions, the aforementioned regulation contradicted the constitutional prohibition of disproportionate punishment, a norm-principle of equality and the protection of personal liberty.
First of all, the Constitutional Court analyzed the factual circumstances of the case which formed the basis of each constitutional submission and concluded that the Tetritskaro District Court was hearing cases concerning the alleged commission of offences, as provided for in the first parts of Articles 166 and 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia. In turn, the provision disputed in the constitutional submissions concerned not the first-time offences, but the repeated commission of the aforementioned offences. Taking into account the above, the author of the submissions did not face the need to apply the disputed regulations in the administrative offences cases under his consideration, which constitutes a mandatory legal precondition for lodging a constitutional submission with the Constitutional Court.
The author of the constitutional submissions did not deny that the disputed norms were not directly applicable for deciding the cases under his consideration. However, if the persons brought to administrative liability were found to be offenders, the disputed regulations would result in a future violation of their constitutional rights, in particular, in the event of repeated commission of administrative offences. In this context, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the constitutional submission mechanism may be used only in relation to norms applicable by the trial court within the scope of the pending legal proceedings, and that neither the Constitution nor the ordinary legislation regulating the constitutional submission instrument allows for any broader, far-reaching interpretation in this regard. The Constitutional Court also indicated that disputing, by the constitutional submission, the norms that cannot constitute applicable law in the initiated proceedings would unreasonably lead to the suspension of the consideration of the case, which would contradict the constitutional principle of the administration of prompt justice and the interest of individuals in the timely determination of their rights and obligations.
In view of the foregoing, the Constitutional Court of Georgia concluded that the author of the constitutional submissions had broadly, yet incorrectly perceived the role of a judge of a common court in lodging submissions with the Constitutional Court, as well as the scope of the competence of the Constitutional Court as defined by legislation, according to which it is empowered to consider, on the basis of a submission by a common court, not any law (normative act), but only the law (normative act) to be applied by the common court when hearing a particular case.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the Constitutional Submissions №1923, №1929 and №1931 did not meet the requirement of justification and declared them inadmissible for consideration on the merits
Subject of the Dispute: Constitutionality of Part 4 of the Note to Article 166 and Part 4 of the Note to Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia with respect to Paragraph 2 of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 11, and Paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the Constitution of Georgia.
