News
The Constitutional Court of Georgia Does Not Satisfy the Constitutional Claim № 1511
On November 14, 2025, the Second Board of the Constitutional Court of Georgia did not satisfy the constitutional claim № 1511 ("Bondo Tedoradze, Anzor Gubaev and Khatuna Beridze v. the Parliament of Georgia").
Based on the disputed norm, exceeding the permissible rates of acoustic noise in a residential house, in a building of privately owned real property or social/public institution during the daytime or nighttime, is declared an administrative offense.
On the basis of the disputed provision, the claimants were subject to administrative liability. The violation they committed consisted of exceeding the permissible acoustic noise limits by using sound amplifying devices during a demonstration directed toward the politician’s residence.
According to the claimants, the form and manner of an assembly are often decisive for its effectiveness. In the present case, an effective form of protest was to gather in the vicinity of the politician’s private property/residence and to use sound amplifying devices to create noise intended to cause him/her discomfort. Therefore, the demonstrators’ actions fell within the scope protected by the freedom of assembly and did not constitute a violation of the law. The claimants argue that in similar situations, despite potential conflicts with other rights, priority should be given to the right to freedom of assembly. However, the general courts, on the contrary, attributed to the disputed provision a normative content that blanketly prioritizes the interests served by restricting permissible levels of acoustic noise on private property.
According to the defendant, in order to determine the actual content of the disputed norm, it should be interpreted in conjunction with the Note attached to the same provision. The Note states that the prohibition established by the contested norm does not apply to persons acting within the scope of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of Georgia. Therefore, individuals whose actions in their intensity, form, and nature do not exceed the permissible limits of the right to assembly and manifestation do not fall under the scope of the disputed norm at all. Consequently, according to the defendant, the disputed norm does not interfere with the freedom of assembly.
The Constitutional Court noted that, within the framework of the present case, the relevant assessment concerned the normative content of the disputed provision that qualifies as an administrative offense a non-spontaneous and continuous assembly held in a public space adjacent to private property, during which the participants, using sound amplifying devices, intentionally create loud noise and exceed the permissible acoustic noise limits over the course of approximately one month, at various times of the day and night, including nighttime hours, in order to cause discomfort to a politician residing in the private dwelling and thereby convey to him/her a protest message of a political nature.
The Constitutional Court of Georgia explained that the right to assemble includes the freedom to choose the content, time, venue and form of the assembly. However, when the right to assemble competes with other constitutional rights and values, it may be subject to various types of restrictions.
In the given case, precisely such a value-based conflict took place. Specifically, there was a confrontation between, on one hand, the claimants' right to assemble and express political protest in the form most acceptable to them, namely, through excessive noise directed toward the politician's house and, on the other hand, the interests of persons residing in the territory within the protest area to live in a peaceful and health-safe environment, to enjoy uninterrupted rights to personal and family life, and to have the possibility of unimpeded rest and the conduct of various activities.
The Constitutional Court of Georgia, taking into account all components of the value-based conflict under consideration, has justly and reasonably deemed it appropriate to give the disputed norm such content that declares as an administrative offense the multiple exceeding of permissible acoustic noise norms in public space, adjacent to residential territory, within the framework of non-spontaneous and pre-planned assemblies, including during nighttime hours, when such assembly is purposefully directed toward disturbing and disrupting the normal rhythm of life of the person/persons in the residential house."
Following the analysis of the importance of protecting an individual’s residence and the rights associated with it, the Constitutional Court of Georgia explained that, in the present case, considering the time, venue, and form of the protest, as well as the resulting intensity of the interference with the conflicting rights, it would not be fair to require individuals inside a private residence, regardless of their status, to continue bearing the obligation to tolerate the restriction of their own rights caused by the protest.
Based on the above, the Constitutional Court concluded that the contested normative content of the disputed norm met the requirements of the principle of proportionality and was in accordance with the standards established by Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Georgia. As a result, Constitutional Claim № 1511 was not satisfied.
Subject of the dispute: Constitutionality of Article 771, part 1 of theAdministrative Offences Code of Georgia (the version in force until December 14, 2023) with respect to Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Georgia.
