The abstract of the judgment (The judgment is available only in Georgian). Abstracts published by the Constitutional Court of Georgia summarise the facts of the case and key legal considerations of the judgment.

Abstract

On 22 June, 2017, the Constitutional Court of Georgia did not uphold the constitutional complaint (registration N666) of the citizen of Georgia Shota Jibladze v. the Parliament of Georgia.

The complainant challenged the obligation to pay compensation to the State for changing the purpose of use of the land by natural and legal persons, who were owners of agricultural lands which appeared within the administrative boundaries of the city, Batumi.

The Constitutional Court ascertained, that presence of agricultural land within the municipal boundaries of a city was a factor restraining expansion of urban territories of cities and reduced the risk of harmful influence on environment within the specific territory. Therefore, presence of agricultural zone within the municipal boundaries of big cities, together with their use according to their function - for agricultural purposes, and control of urban development, also ensured that people lived in a healthy environment, biodiversity was maintained and anthropogenic influence on the environment was controlled. Moreover, agricultural land was a scarce resource, and its use for construction purposes les to reduction of this resource. Therefore, the Constitutional Court ruled, that for changing the purpose of agricultural land by the legislator, to strike a fair balance between the above-listed public interests and free disposal of property by the owner the disputed provision constituted a proportional means for achieving the goal and did not violate constitutional right of property. In view of this, constitutional complaint was not upheld.