News
Constitutional Court of Georgia does not satisfy a Constitutional Complaint No. 1432
On 28 November 2025, the Second Board of the Constitutional Court of Georgia did not satisfy the Constitutional Complaint No. 1432 (‘Tsitsi Chelidze, Sopiko Jichonaia, Ana Gagua et al. v. The Parliament of Georgia and the Minister of Education, Science and Youth of Georgia’) insofar as it concerned the claims of the complainants Tsitsi Chelidze, Sofiko Jichonaia, Ana Gagua, Sofiko Tvalabeishvili and Mariam Barsonidze, whereas the proceedings were discontinued with respect to the claims of the claimants Mariam Shatirishvili and Tamar Stepanishvili.
Disputed norms on the case to be reviewed define the rules for obtaining a state-funded bachelor’s or master’s study grant and prohibit the award of more than one state study grant to the same individual at each level of higher education. They further set that a master’s student may receive state funding through a master’s study grant only once, for a single educational program area, including a priority educational program area.
According to the claimant’s argumentation, the fundamental right to higher education considers the State’s obligation to use the resources available to it in order to create appropriate conditions for all interested persons to fully realize their right to education. Contrary to this obligation, the applicants contended that disputed onrms imposed a blanket restriction on individuals’ ability to receive higher education multiple times with state funding - even at the same level of study and thereby to enhance their professional qualifications.
The representatives of the defendant party - the Parliament of Georgia argued that Article 27(2) of the Constitution of Georgia does not oblige the State to fund the same individual’s higher education multiple times at the same level of study. The representative of the respondent, the Ministry of Education, Science and Youth of Georgia, further noted that the State provides all citizens with equal opportunities to obtain funding for higher education under conditions of fair competition. Under the circumstances of limited budgetary resources, allowing an individual to receive state funding for a second time would substantially prejudice the interests of those who are seeking to obtain a bachelor’s or master’s study grant for the first time.
The Constitutional Court of Georgia clarified that the fundamental rights to obtain higher and vocational education and to receive funding therefore encompass an individual’s opportunity not only to acquire a single profession, but also, where necessary, to obtain the knowledge and skills required to pursue a new profession of their choice. This enables individuals to effectively adapt to the rapidly changing socio-economic environment characteristic of the modern world and to ensure sustainable self-development. The Constitutional Court further noted that, despite the great importance of the right to education and the right to its funding, access to these rights - both multiple and even single-instance access - is inherently limited with budgetary resources of the State. Consequently, the legislature is required to balance competing interests.
In the present case, the Constitutional Court took into account that, in addition to the restriction established with disputed norms, legislation provides alternative mechanisms which support the process of obtaining or pursuing higher education - namely, state scholarships and opportunities for funding studies abroad which are available to individuals under the circumstances similar to those of the applicants. Therefore, even under the disputed norms, access to state resources is not absolutely prohibited to the persons willing to acquire the skills necessary for a new profession. Furthermore, with respect to those individuals who have already enjoyed state funding for higher education once, there is a comparatively higher expectation that they will use the knowledge and skills acquired in order to establish themselves within society, as opposed to those who have not yet benefited from such an opportunity and therefore do not possess professional education or qualifications.
In view of the above-mentioned, the Constitutional Court of Georgia concluded that the restriction established with disputed norms ensures a fair balance between the interests of first-time beneficiaries of state resources and those of individuals seeking to receive funding a second time. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court found that disputed norms comply with the requirements set forth in Article 27, Paragraph 1, and the fourth sentence of Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Georgia.
Subject of the dispute: The constitutionality of the Paragraph 3 of Article 80 and Paragraph 3 of Article 801 of the Law of Georgia “On Higher Education”, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the “Rules and Conditions for the Awarding and Transfer of State Educational Grants and State Educational Master’s Grants to Accredited Higher Education Programs at Higher Education Institutions”, approved with the Order №154/n by the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia dated 15 September 2011, in relation to the Article 27, Paragraph 1, and the fourth sentence of Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Georgia.
