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 7 December 2018, the Constitutional Court of Georgia adopted the Judgement in the case of “Citizens of The Republic of Armenia - Garnik Varderesyan, Artavaz Khachatryan and Ani Minasyan v. The Parliament of Georgia and the Government of Georgia”.

The subject of dispute in this case was the constitutionality of Article 1(v), Article 3(5)(a) of the law of Georgia on the Development of High Mountainous Regions and Article 3(1)(a), 5(3)(a) of the Rule adopted by Ordinance №591 of 19 November, 2015 of the Government of Georgia on adopting of the rule relating to granting, termination, suspending and restoration of the status of permanent resident of a high mountainous settlement with respect to Article 14 of the Constitution of Georgia.

The complainants asserted that the challenged provisions violated the right of foreign citizens and stateless persons to acquire the status of a permanent resident in high mountainous regions and therefore, excluded them from receiving socio-economic benefits attached to this status. The complainants contended that Georgian and foreign citizens equally participated in the social, economic and cultural development of high mountainous regions. Yet, the challenged provisions granted the benefits only to Georgian citizens and constituted discriminatory treatment on the ground of citizenship, which was contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of Georgia.

The respondent party contended that differential treatment in the case was not highly intensive, as the complainant could acquire Georgian citizenship and qualify for above-mentioned benefits. The respondent party mentioned that the legitimate aims of the challenged provisions were economic security of the state and protection of state borders, moreover – effective use of the limited resources and prevention of migration processes.

The Constitutional Court of Georgia deemed that the challenged provisions constituted differentiation as they granted financial benefits, with the aim of socio-economic development of high mountainous regions, only to Georgian citizen. The Constitutional Court of Georgia noted that the socio-economic development of the high mountainous region was ensured by maintaining and/or increasing the number of population, regardless of their citizenship. Therefore, for the purpose of the disputed situation, Georgian and foreign citizens with a permanent residence permit in Georgia should be assessed as substantially equal persons.

The Constitutional Court of Georgia noted that differential treatment on the basis of citizenship did not belong to the classic grounds of discrimination listed in Article 14 of the Constitution of Georgia. Furthermore, under the disputed provisions, Georgian citizens received only partial aid in the form of wage and pension supplement, tax relief and exemption from the payment of electricity bills. Thus, the challenged provision did not create a drastic separatory gap between the comparative groups. Consequently, according to the well-established practice of the Constitutional Court, rational differentiation test was applied to the assessment of the constitutionality of differential treatment in the case.

The Constitutional Court did not adopt that the aim of economic security of the state justified the restriction, and noted that saving budgetary funds is not sufficient enough ground for justifying above mentioned differentiation. Furthermore, the Court noted that there was no rational and reasonable link between the disputed provisions and the protection of the frontier region, as the social benefits were granted to residents of high mountainous settlements and not for residents of frontier regions. Moreover, discussing the mentioned aim of prevention of migration processes, the court ruled that the restriction was not connected to participation in parliamentary elections, the better exercise of local self-government or controlling the migration process, as the regulatory scope of these provisions did not include determination of migration policy.

The Constitutional Court asserted that according to the Constitution of Georgia, the state is responsible to promote the equal socio-economic progress of high mountainous regions. Thus, the legitimate aim of the disputed provision was the realisation of this particular objective. The state adopted socio-economic benefits for residents of high mountainous regions in order to achieve this aim. The Constitutional Court noted that the state had a wide margin of appreciation to select the group of people who would receive socio-economic benefits. The Constitutional Court deemed that Georgian citizens have more solid legal connection and guarantees with the state of Georgia, than foreign citizens with a permanent residence permit. Consequently, the Constitutional Court concluded that foreign citizens are more likely to emigrate from Georgia than Georgian citizens. Thus, the expectation, that the residents of high mountainous regions who receive the benefits will continue long-term residence in high mountainous regions is higher with regard to Georgian citizens than foreign citizens with a permanent residence permit in Georgia. Therefore, the potential effect of the state investment in the form of the challenged measure would be higher too. In view of these reasons, the state policy to distribute limited resources only to Georgian citizens is rational and reasonable. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court ruled that the challenged provision did not violate Article of 14 of the Constitution of Georgia.