News
The Constitutional Court of Georgia Rules to Partially Uphold the Constitutional Claim №1689
On December 11, 2025 the Plenum of the Constitutional Court of Georgia ruled to partially uphold the Constitutional Claim №1689 (“Alexander Akhaladze v. the Parliament of Georgia”).
With respect to Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Constitution of Georgia, the subject of the dispute was the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, which deemed inadmissible the submission of an application for the reopening of proceedings in a closed case on the ground of newly discovered circumstances after the expiry of 5 years from the date the judgment entered into legal force, even where a criminal act committed by the parties to the case, their representatives, or the judge had been established.
The author of the constitutional claim states that the established five-year limitation period does not satisfy the criterion of reasonableness, since the determination of a criminal act committed by the parties to the case, their representatives, or the judge is linked to the investigation of a criminal case, which proceeds over a long period of time, thereby making compliance with the five-year time limit established by the disputed regulation impossible.
According to the explanation of the Claimant, after the expiry of the limitation period established by the disputed regulation, a person is deprived of the opportunity to apply to the court for the protection of their rights and legitimate interests and to request a review of an unlawful judgement, which is incompatible with the requirements of the constitutional right to a fair trial.
According to the Respondent, the disputed regulation protects the finality of a judgment adopted in a civil case, which is a necessary condition for ensuring legal security, the stability of civil circulation and legal certainty. In addition to this, the Respondent notes that the five-year limitation period established for the reopening of proceedings in a closed case on the disputed ground is reasonable and fairly balances private and public interests.
After identifying the scope protected by Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Constitution of Georgia and the circumstances to be assessed in the case, the Constitutional Court examined the proportionality of the restriction of the right of access to a court resulting from the disputed regulation.
The court indicated that in order to reopen proceedings on the disputed ground, it was necessary for the judgment of conviction to enter into legal force, and in this context distinguished between two categories of cases: where the investigation of an allegedly committed crime by a party, its representative or a judge begins within the 5-year limitation period applicable to the relevant civil case, but the judgment enters into legal force after the expiry of this period, and where both the initiation of the investigation and the legal entry into force of the judgment of conviction occur after the expiry of five-year limitation period.
The Court established that the disputed regulation also applied to the case where the disputed ground for reopening proceedings was revealed within the five-year limitation period and an investigation was initiated, but the judgement entered into legal force after the expiry of that period. According to the Court’s reasoning, in this particular case, the person's right of access to a court, which was restricted due to the blanket application of the disputed provision, outweighed the legitimate aims pursued by the challenged regulation.
In view of the above, the Constitutional Court of Georgia concluded that the normative content of Paragraph 4 of Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia insofar as it concerns the ground provided for in Sub-paragraph “g” of Paragraph 1 of Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, namely, the inadmissibility of submitting an application for the reopening of proceedings in a closed case by a person after the expiry of 5 years from the date the judgment entered into legal force, in a situation where the investigation was initiated within the five-year limitation period established for the reopening of proceedings in a closed case, but the judgment of conviction in the criminal case entered into legal force after the expiry of the five-year limitation period, contradicts the requirements of Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Constitution of Georgia.
A dissenting opinion of the justices of the Constitutional Court Mr. Giorgi Kverenchkhiladze and Mr. Teimuraz Tughushi is attached to the judgement.
Subject of the Dispute: Constitutionality of the normative content of Paragraph 4 of Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, which concerns the inadmissibility of filing an application for the reopening of proceedings in a closed case on the ground provided for in Sub‑paragraph “g” of Paragraph 1 of Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia due to newly discovered circumstances, after the expiry of five years from the date the judgment entered into legal force, with respect to Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Constitution of Georgia.
