Composition of the Chamber:

1. Nikoloz Cherqezishvili (Chairman)

2. Lamara Chorgolashvili (Rapporteur Judge)

3. Zaur Jinjolava

The Secretary of the Hearing: Elene Lagidze

Title of the Case: Mr. Merab Kikvadze, the founding partner of Lili & Company LLC, v. the President and the Parliament of Georgia.

Subject of the Dispute: The constitutionality of N503 (dated 04.10.2003) and N568 (31.12.2002) ordinances of the President of Georgia; Para 1^st and 2^nd of art.18 and art.27¹ of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings with respect to art. 21 and art.30 (2) of the Constitution of Georgia.

Participants of the Hearing: Claimant – Mr. Merab Kikvadze, founding partner of limited liability company Lili and Company, respondents – the representatives of the Parliament of Georgia: Mr. Batar Chankseliani, Mrs. Marine Robakidze, Mr. Joseph Lomashvili and the representative of the President of Georgia Mrs. Tinatin Siradze.

Pursuant to N2/7/336 (21.07.2005) and N2/9/344 (30.09.2005) records of the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Georgia the constitutional claims registered under N327, N336 and N344 were united under one constitutional claim and have been admitted for examination on the merits.

The chamber has considered each claim separately and has
ESTABLISHED:

1. Mr. Merab Kikvadze, the founding partner of limited liability company Lili and Company, on 26^th of April of 2005 submitted a constitutional claim to the Constitutional Court and requested to recognize ordinances of the President - N568 (dated 31.12.2002) and N503 (04.11.2003) as unconstitutional with art.21 and art.30(2) of the Constitution of Georgia.

The grounds for submitting the constitutional claim are art. 89(1) (f), art.19 (1) (e), art.23 (1) and art.39 (1) (a) of the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court of Georgia.

2. In claimant’s opinion, the reasons for unconstitutionality of the President’s ordinance N568 (31.12.2002) with art. 21 and art.30 (2) of the Constitution are the following: In the given dispute, the object of property in this dispute is claim right of a claimant which is provided by the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia of 5^th march of 1999 and pursuant to which the stock company “Azoti” was liable to pay 1 820 779 GEL to the claimant. At present the remaining amount due is 999 379 GEL.

The claimant states, that by decision 21^st February of 2001 of Rustavi Court the bankruptcy proceedings was opened towards the Stock Company “Azoti”.

The disputed act established that state property of 90% of stocks of the joint stock company “Azoti” through direct sales method, with symbolic price (equivalent of 500 000 USD in national currency) has been sold to Itera International Energy limited liability company with the condition that certain measures provided in the business plan will be realized. However, in claimant’s opinion, there is no indication that the mentioned business plan has underwent appropriate expertise and is acceptable in the sense that it will contribute to timely resolution of joint stock company Azoti’s financial and management problems.

In claimant’s opinion the reasons for unconstitutionality of the N503 (dated 04.10.2003) ordinance of the President of Georgia with respect to art. 21 and art.30 (2) of the Constitution of Georgia are the following: The disputed act establishes, that international energy company Itera International Energy Limited liability company will concede to joint stock company Azoti the claim for repayment of consumed gas debt of 22 111 941 GEL against the population of Georgia and budgetary bodies.

Accordingly, joint stock company Azoti will be due to pay in cash to Itera International Energy LLC the amount equal to the sum of the claim conceded and the population of Georgia and budgetary bodies will have a claim of the same amount against Azoti joint stock company. Pursuant to art.246 of the Tax Code of Georgia, the tax authority will require from the population of Georgia and form budgetary bodies to carry on duty towards the state. In the case of full or partial accomplishment of the duty, the taxpayer’s - Azoti Joint Stock Company’s tax due will be considered decreased.

As a result of realization of the ordinance N503 (04.10.2003) of the President of Georgia Azoti joint stock company’s due to creditors will increase by 22 11 941 GEL. In this case the main creditor will become Itera International Energy LLC and it will have indefinite rights relative to other creditors.

Taking into account the social situation of the population of Georgia, the repayment of the debt is impossible and this means that as a result of the transferred right the Azoti joint stock company‘s due to creditors will increase as a result of which it will be practically impossible to realize rehabilitation plan. Realization of the rehabilitation plan is the only legitimate means for the claimant to receive its property.

On the basis of the above mentioned, the claimant thinks that the ordinance of the President of Georgia N503 violates his as Lili and Company LLC founding partner’s property right, because he could not receive benefit from his own property and additionally his right as of the entrepreneur has been restricted.

3. On the 23^rd June of 2005 Mr. Merab Kikvadze, the founding partner of Lili and Company LLC submitted a constitutional claim (N336) to the Constitutional Court of Georgia and requested to recognize as unconstitutional art. 18 (1) and (2) of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings with art.21 and 30(2) of the Constitution of Georgia.

The grounds for the constitutional claim are art.19 (1) (e), art.23 (1) and art.39 (1) (a) of the Organic Law on The Constitutional Court of Georgia.

Regarding the bankruptcy case of Azoti Joint Stock Company, Rustavi district Court ruling of 27^th July 2001 postponed opening of the bankruptcy proceedings and ascertained rehabilitation plan, according to which, coverage of the creditor debt was fixed by agreed schedule.

The mentioned plan was not accomplished and on the basis of the statement by the Ministry of Finance, by ruling of 6 June 2005, bankruptcy proceedings opened.

The claimant thinks that the sequence of the claims of creditors in art.18 (1) of the law on Bankruptcy Proceedings is unconstitutional, because it creates unfounded and illegal privileges, which places creditors in unequal situation and under the risk of not receiving their due.

In claimant’s opinion, opening of the bankruptcy proceedings against Azoti Joint Stock Company means that assets of the company will be sold with the price which in the best case will ensure partial satisfaction of the claim of the Ministry of Finance (30m GEL). According to art. 18(1)(a) (second row) due payments and claims of international organizations are placed in the second row.

In claimant’s opinion, unconstitutionality of art.18 (2) of the Law on the Bankruptcy Proceedings is based on the unconstitutionality of the first paragraph of the same norm, because this norm emphasizes that the creditors on the subsequent place in the sequence will be paid from the company assets, only then when the creditors first in the sequence will be fully satisfied and that the fixed sequence of the creditors protects only the rights of one creditors placed in one row.

On the basis of all the above mentioned, the claimant thinks that 1^st and 2^nd paragraphs of art.18 violate his as founding partner’s of Lili and Company LLC property right, because he could not receive a benefit from his own property and also his right of entrepreneurships has been limited.

4. Mr. Merab Kikvadze, the founding partner of Lili and Company LLC has submitted the constitutional claim on 3^rd August of 2005 and requested additionally that art. 27¹ of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings be recognized as unconstitutional with respect to art.21 and 30(2) of the Constitution of Georgia.

The constitutional claim states, that art. 27¹ of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings establishes rule for satisfying bankruptcy claims as provided by art.18 (1) (a) and (a¹) from the profit received through realization of the assets.

The claimant thinks that unconstitutionality of the disputed norm results also from the fact that on the basis of this law, from the fraction of profits received through realization of the assets (in case when the claims provided by art.19 of the same law are fully satisfied.) is possible to be covered only through satisfying claims in sequence those provided first by art. 18 (1)(a) and subsequently by art.18(1) (a¹).

On the basis of the above mentioned, the claimant requires to recognize as incompatible N503 and N568 ordinances of the President of Georgia, art. 18(1), art.18 (2), art. 27¹ of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings with respect to art.1 and art.30 (2) of the Constitution of Georgia.

Pursuant to the decision of the chamber of the court, the following witnesses have been invited on the hearing: the representatives of Azoti Joint Stock Company and of the Ministry of Finance of Georgia. On 17^th January 2006, on the examination on merits, the chamber of the court granted the motion to the claimant to invite Energy Invest Joint Stock Company’s representative as a witness.

In the opinion of the representatives of the Parliament, Mr. Batar Chanskseliani, Mrs. Marine Robakidze and Mr. Joseph Lomashvili, the disputed norms of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings are not incompatible with the Constitution because of the following:

The aim of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings is not to ensure satisfaction of each and every creditor. Pursuant to art.1 of the law “The aim of this law is to overcome debtor’s financial difficulties and to satisfy creditor’s claims through liquidation or rehabilitation of debtor’s company”. In the explanatory report to the draft law on changes and additions to the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings is stated, that during the bankruptcy proceedings it is necessary that “optimal choice be made between the liquidation and rehabilitation of the company, the guarantee of which is choice of creditors for intentional convenience and for receiving more benefit.” This indicates that the mentioned law contributes to the protection of the property interests of creditors and does not disregard them. .

The representatives of the respondent think, that in case of equal apportionment of the assets of the company, it is true that each creditor would have received some satisfaction, but it would have been impossible to satisfy all of them in full, which would have resulted in the violation of the property right as guaranteed by art. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 1. The rule for sequenced satisfaction represents the means for achieving maximum satisfaction of creditors.

The representatives of the Parliament of Georgia think that if the value of assets of the company is not sufficient for satisfying every claim, the creditor can initiate bankruptcy negotiation procedure which is provided for by part three of the mentioned law and protect his legitimate interests. Through lodging a claim, (art.31 of the disputed law) he can appeal resolution on the opening of bankruptcy proceedings.

In the opinion of the representatives of the Parliament of Georgia, any interference from the side of the state in the property right shall only be justified by legitimate public/common interest. As to about what is public interest, this is the object of evaluation of the state. In connection with this, the respondent puts forward the example of the judgment of the European Court on Human Rights in the case Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden, in which it is stated that in accordance with the human rights protection mechanism guaranteed by the convention, the state may make initial assessment of the social problems related to limitation of the property rights as well as about the measures for overcoming those problems. The respondent also points to the judgment of the European Court of Human Right Scola v. Italy, in which the Court stated that art.1 (2) of the first Protocol of the European Convention on the protection of Human Rights and Freedoms allows the state, to adopt such laws, which are necessary in accordance with public interests for the control of enjoyment of possessions.

Additionally, the respondent states that establishment of the rule of sequential satisfaction is approved in number of civilized states, for instance in France, the Russian Federation, Italy, Belgium, Great Britain, Germany, Holland and in the United States of America.

Therefore, the respondent thinks that the sequence established by the law contributes to the social justice.

On the basis of the above mentioned, in the opinion of the representatives of the Parliament, art. 18(1) and 18(2) of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings (25.0601996) are in conformance with the Constitution as well as with the norms of international law and therefore the constitutional claim should be dismissed on the ground that the claim is unfounded.

The representative of the President – Mrs. Tinatin Siradze thinks that N503 and N568 ordinances of the President of Georgia are not incompatible with the Constitution because of the following reasons: The above mentioned disputed norms are not normative in character, as they do not establish general rules of recurrent application, but are designed for one occasion only and thus they are individual legal acts. None of them satisfy the criteria of the definition of normative acts provided for by art.2 (3) of the Law on Normative Acts.

Additionally, the representative of the President thinks that even the contents of the disputed norms are not incompatible with the Constitution.

In the opinion of the representative of the President there are not sufficient evidences and circumstances provided in the constitutional claim that would have made the claim unfounded. In her opinion, the argument expressed by the claimant that satisfaction of his claim because of the N 568 Ordinance of the President was dependent only on Itera International Energy LLC’s good will, may only be litigated in the ordinary courts and is not in anyway related to the mentioned articles of the Constitution. Furthermore, the mentioned ordinance is empowering administrative act which is already accomplished evidenced by the fact that on 20^th of March of 2003 between the Estate Management Ministry of Georgia and Itera International Energy LLC the sales contract was drawn, according art.2.1.2 of which the buyer took responsibility of fully and timely fulfilling the obligations given by the business plan.

Therefore, the representative of the President thinks that existence of the disputed ordinance has been ceased from the day it was repealed and this will not cause any legal consequence because these ordinances are adopted in full accordance with requirements of the legislation. As what concerns making already accomplished legal act void and its legal consequences this requires deeper analysis and argumentation.

What concerns N503 ordinance of the President of Georgia, the respondent thinks that in the first case, the President of Georgia exercised the right given by the legislation and transferred state property of 90% of stock of Azoti Joint Stock Company to the Itera International Energy LLC and with the same ordinance determined the condition for such transfer to be accomplishment of those measures provided by the business plan, which would at the same time mean satisfaction of the creditor’s of Azoti Joint Stock Company.

The representative of the President of Georgia stated that the legislator is empowered by the Constitution to limit the proprietor on the basis of public interest, in accordance with requirements of proportionality principle. According to the disputed act, the legislator while establishing the sequence of satisfaction of claims has deemed it to be prior and in accordance with social necessity to satisfy claims of salary debt, budgetary payments, unsecured claims, social insurance, claims of pension, medical and unemployment insurance funds.

On the basis of the above mentioned, the representative of the President considers that the argumentation of the claimant does not substantiate incompatibility claim of the ordinances of the President in respect with art.21 and art.30 of the Constitution and therefore, she thinks, that the constitutional claim should be refused.

According to submissions by the invited witnesses, the representatives of the Ministry of Finance – Mr. Gela Kvaratskhelia and Mr. Murtaz Kavzianidze, as the conditions of the rehabilitation plan, involving coverage of the debt, was not carried out by Itera International Energy LLC, the Ministry of Finance has applied to the court with the request to open bankruptcy proceedings. The proceedings have not been finished yet and Itera International Energy LLC is one of the creditors. As what concerns the sequence established by the law, the witnesses think, that creditor claims are of such amount, the coverage of which is impossible and therefore the sequence established by the law which gives priority to the coverage of tax dues, shall not be recognized as unconstitutional. According to the testimony of the representative of the Ministry of Finance, he as one of the creditors tries to protect his interests.

According to the explanation of the representative of Azoti Joint Stock Company – Mrs. Irina Bakradze, on 21^st of the February of 2001, one of the creditors has applied to the Rustavi District Court and requested opening of bankruptcy proceedings against Azoti, however in the same period of time, Itera International Energy LLC entered in the company as an investor and the opening of the bankruptcy proceeding has been delayed for three years, as for the company it was subjected to rehabilitation regime and therefore new business plan was developed. However, the investor company could not cover creditor debt, because obligations were a lot more than assets and on 6 July of 2005 the bankruptcy proceedings against Azoti was reopened. The witness also noted that Azoti Joint Stock Company had 28 creditors towards whom the debt was more than 500. The head of the bankruptcy proceedings has recognized 400m as disputable and only acknowledged as a debt 100m. Among those acknowledged as disputable was the debt to Lili and Company Ltd. Because the stock capital of Azoti Joint Stock Company was only 27m and acknowledged debt was 100m, the witness thinks, that the law correctly prioritizes satisfaction of state claim first, as the coverage of the debt of state budget goes back to thousands of families.

According to the testimony of the witness, the bankruptcy proceedings are not yet finished and from those creditors to whom the acknowledged debt amounted to 100m, none has yet been satisfied.

According to he explanation of the invited witness on the case, the Deputy Head of the legal department of Energy Invest Joint Stock Company – Ms. Svetlana Nibladze, the mentioned company on the 7^th October of the previous year has become proprietor of the assets of Azoti Joint Stock Company. According to her information, the disputed ordinances of the President do not operate, because with the present condition, the proprietor of the immovable and movable assets of the Azoti Joint Stock Company is Energy Invest Joint Stock Company, which in accordance to her testimony, does not take any responsibility for the debts incurred before and will only be responsible for assets. She also states, that the head of the bankruptcy proceedings has a right to dispute the judgment of the Supreme Court, which concerns the debt of Lili and Company Ltd.

The second chamber of the Constitutional Court on the basis of the materials attached to the claim, in the course of the examination of the case on merits, established the following necessary circumstances for making a judgment:

1. The claimant – Mr. Merab Kikvadze, the founding partner of Lili and Company LLC, by the constitutional claim N327 requests repealing of the ordinances of the President of N 568 (31.12.2002) and of N 503 (04.11.2003), on the basis of which 90% of the state property stock in Azoti Joint Stock Company through direct sales method has been transferred to Itera International Energy LLC with symbolic price, through satisfying the conditions given in the business plan and was established transfer of the right to claim for the consumed gas by organizations and population from Itera International Energy LLC to Azoti Joint Stock Company, which in the opinion of the claimant, will result in the increase by 22m of creditors’ debt of Azoti and through the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia will decrease chances of receiving monies.

By the ruling of 27^th July of 2001, the Rustavi District Court upheld the motion of General Director of Azoti Joint Stock Company about the postponement of opening of bankruptcy proceedings launched in the February of 2001 and Azoti Joint Stock Company was moved in the rehabilitation regime. The same court by the ruling of 8 July of 2003, extended deadline for accomplishing rehabilitation plan. It appears from the materials of the case that rehabilitation has not achieved its purpose – to overcome financial difficulties of debtor, reinstate liquidity of the company and prevent liquidation. On the contrary, as pointed in the ruling of the Rustavi district court of 6 June of 2005, instead of rehabilitation, during this regime new obligations were created against the company and there were illegal expropriation of the company’s assets, this has been the ground from the side of the Finance Ministry to apply to the court, which has by the mentioned ruling terminated rehabilitation process and opened bankruptcy proceedings. By the sales contract of 22 July 2005 all assets in the property of Azoti Joint Stock Company were purchased by Energy Invest Joint Stock Company and remains in its property to date.

The both disputed ordinances of the President were adopted with the purposes of rehabilitation of Azoti Joint Stock Company, which has not been achieved because of non accomplishment of obligation by Itera International Energy LLC, which has resulted in termination of rehabilitation process.

On the basis of the above mentioned, as the realization process of the assets of Azoti Joint Stock Company has been finished without participation of Itera International Energy LLC, concession of the right to claim has not happened with this reason, the Constitutional Court of Georgia considers, that the disputed normative acts were not operative in the time of examination of the case, even though these acts have not been officially acknowledged as repealed by the Ministry of Justice. As it seems, the acts adopted with the purpose to rehabilitate the company were not realized and this has been the ground for termination of rehabilitation, which resulted in the bankruptcy of the company. Therefore, the court cannot agree with the statement of the representative of the President that the ordinances have been carried out.

The Constitutional Court cannot examine constitutionality of the normative acts, if by the time of the examination of the case they are not operative and therefore no legal results stems form them.

Pursuant to art.13 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Proceedings this results in the termination of the case in the court.

Pursuant to art.50 of the Law of Georgia on Normative Acts, a normative act can be without legal force, even if its is not acknowledged as void and even more if there is not legal relations regulated by the act.

2. The claimant requires that 1^st and 2nd paragraphs of art.18 of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings be acknowledged as unconstitutional because it places on the second place of bankruptcy tableau the taxes and fees as well as claims of international organizations creates unjustifiable privilege to the state property, which places on unequal footing creditors, the majority of whom are under the risk of not receiving their due. With the same motivation, the claimant deems it incompatible with the Constitution art. 27¹ of the same law, which regulates distribution of the returns from the realization of the assets remaining. The claimant deems it unacceptable art.18 (2) of the law, pursuant to which if distributable assets are not sufficient for satisfying claims of the first row, then they will be satisfied proportionally.

The claimant justifies his claim by stating that the disputed norm of the law limits his right to property acknowledged by art.21 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court has more than once pointed that the right to property is not absolute one. Norms of international law, the mentioned article of the Constitution as well as operative legislative acts in Georgia allow for restriction of the right. .

Art.1 of first Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right of peaceful enjoyment of property by each individual or legal entity. Expropriation of the property is permissible only in accordance with social necessity in the conditions determined by the law and general principle of international law. At the same time, these provisions do not violate the right of the state to interfere with the right to property. Art.1(2) of the same protocol defines the imperative right to apply such law, which it deems necessary for common interests, for controlling enjoyment of property and for ensuring payment of taxes, fees or fines.

The Court thinks that defining taxes and fees as one of the grounds by the state to interfere with the right to property mentioned by the European Convention on Human Rights is directed to establishing social equality and represents realization of “common interest” mentioned in art.1 of the first protocol, as monies received through taxes and fees through state budget are returned to the population by satisfying their social needs and this is very important in the times of transitional difficulties.

The European Court of Human Rights has pointed in the case of Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden, that “the national authorities, which directly knows the conditions and needs of its society, has an advantage in assessing what constituted social interest than the international court”.

The Court thinks that, the state decided on the basis of this that taxes and fees be placed on the second row of bankruptcy tableau, that is acknowledging these as privileged creditors for ensuring resolution of social problems.

The example of state interference with the right to property in accordance with legitimate aim of common interest is provided by the judgment of European Court of Human Rights on the case of Skola v.Italy. The court based its judgment on the fact that art.1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights gives right to the state to adopt such laws, which it deems necessary for common interest, with the condition of maintaining fair legal balance between social interests and protection of individuals’ rights. The court in this case does not see violation of the principle of proportionality.

The same reasoning is present in the judgment on the case of James v. United Kingdom.

In accordance with common interests, state’s proportional interference with the right to property according to the Constitutional Court of Georgia does not constitute breach of an obligation to develop free entrepreneurship and thus it does not think that the claim of violation of art. 30(2) of the Constitution is substantiated.

3. The Chamber of the Court does not agree with the claimant that the sequential rule in the bankruptcy tableau is unconstitutional.

The Court has found out that, sequential satisfaction of creditors in bankruptcy cases is a general rule, which is established in almost every European state, with slight differences in the order of the types of claims within the sequence. The proportional distribution of assets among creditors proved impossible and the sequential rule has been recognized as a better method.

French legislation attributes salaries, taxes and fee claims in the privileged category and uninsured creditors (bankruptcy creditors) will be satisfied only then when claims of prior order will be met. Thus state budget is given privilege in relation to taxes.

In accordance with the relevant legislation of Italy, there are general and special privileged claims. Bankruptcy creditors are placed in the last order and prior to their satisfaction first is met the claims of state taxes.

On the basis of the above mentioned the Constitutional Court thinks that the sequential rule in the bankruptcy tableau is used in almost all European states. Giving the priority within the order by the state is based on the above mentioned right of a state to establish control on proper distribution of property in cases of debtors bankruptcy and therefore there is not reason for acknowledging the disputed norm as unconstitutional.

The Court cannot agree with claimant’s statement that as disputed act gives privilege to the state in the bankruptcy tableau the state loses motivation to save the company from bankruptcy, because its claim is in the first order. This opinion is based on a supposition and there were no justifications provided to support it.

4. The claim of the claimant to satisfy his debt disregarding the order, with the motive that it is ascertained by the judgment of the supreme court, is not based on the law.

Pursuant to art.18(3) and art.18(4) of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings, it is allowed to check creditors claims in the cases when it is based on enforcement document and in case of dispute he can apply to court. This rule is not adhered to by the claimant. Apart form this, the order of satisfaction of creditors on the basis of the judgment of a court was operative before also and is now established by the XIV¹ part of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings.

Thus, on the basis of art.89(1)(f) of the Constitution of Georgia, art.19(1)(e),art 21(2),art.39(1)(a) and art.39(2), Para 2,4,7,8 of art.43of the law on Constitutional Court of Georgia, as well as art. 13, art.32 and art.33 of the law on the Constitutional Proceedings,

The Chamber of the Constitutional Court
R U L E S:

1. The proceedings regarding the constitutional claim submitted by Mr. Merab Kikvadze, the founding partner of Lili and Company LLC, against the President of Georgia regarding the constitutionality of the ordinances N568 of 31 December of 2002 and N503 of 4^th October of 2004 with respect to art. 21 and art.30(2) of the Constitution of Georgia be terminated;

2. The constitutional claim of Mr. Merab Kikvadze, the founding partner of Lili and Company LLC, against the Parliament of Georgia regarding the constitutionality of art.18 (1), art.18 (2) and art.27¹ of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings with respect to art.21 and art. 30 of the Constitution of Georgia be dismissed.

3. This judgment is operative from the moment of its public announcement on the hearing of the Constitutional Court;

4. The judgment is final and is not subject to appeal or review.

5. The judgment shall be sent to the President of Georgia, to the Government, to the Parliament of Georgia and to the Supreme Court of Georgia;

6. The judgment shall be published in the Legislative Bulletin of Georgia within 15 days.

The members of the Chamber:

1. Nikoloz Cherkezishvili;

2. Lamara Chorgolashvili;

3. Zaur Jinjolava;