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

In the constitutional complaint №732, the subject of dispute was the constitutionality with regard to Article 16 of the Constitution of Georgia the normative content of Article 273 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, which provided for liability for consumption of narcotic drug, marijuana. The Constitutional Court had to evaluate in this case constitutionality of criminalization of the act of consumption of narcotic drug – marijuana.

The Constitutional Court indicated, that right of a person to choose the type of recreation according to their preferences and to undertake respective activities, including consumption of marijuana, falls within the protected scope of personal autonomy.

The Constitutional Court stated, that the respondent failed to bring the evidence from the verified scientific studies or life experiences, based on which the Court could conclude, that being under the influence of marijuana or in the condition of abstinence, led to heightened risks of commission of crime and/or violation of public order. In view of this, the Court considered that punishment of individual cases of consumption of marijuana could not be considered as the suitable means for protection of public order. Moreover, the respondent failed to provide any evidence based on the scientific studies that would show, that marijuana, due to its biological or chemical properties, led to the development of need for other narcotic drugs.

The Constitutional Court noted, that taken separately, the fact of consumption of marijuana, in view of the nature of this act, is involving little danger to public interest, as there is not even theoretical chance of distribution of narcotic drug. Moreover, in view of the fact, that consumption of the narcotic is preceded by its purchase and/or preparation, the Court considered, that prohibition of consumption of marijuana is a step towards protection of public health. However, imposition of criminal liability to prevent a person to harm his or her own health is the form of paternalism demonstrated by the state, which is not compatible with the free society.

The Constitutional Court decided, that the disputed provision prescribed criminal liability for repeated consumption of marijuana in a blanket manner and without any exceptions, regardless of place and situation of consumption, the person, committing an act and realism of danger for public order. In view of all the above-mentioned, the Constitutional Court considered, that the disputed provision was incompatible with the right to free development of personality enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution.