News
The Constitutional Court of Georgia Rules to Uphold the Constitutional Claim №1597 (“Giorgi Putkaradze v. the Parliament of Georgia”).
On June 4, 2025, The Constitutional Court of Georgia ruled to uphold the Constitutional Claim №1597 (“Giorgi Putkaradze v. the Parliament of Georgia”).
The case concerned the constitutionality of the rule according to which the time limit for appealing a court ruling that declares lawful an investigative action carried out under urgent necessity − an action that restricts private property, possession, or the right to privacy − shall commence from the day the ruling is enforced.
The claimant argued that the disputed norm deprived a person of a meaningful opportunity to timely review the court’s reasoned ruling, to prepare a reasoned appeal, and to demonstrate the unlawfulness of the investigative action, which was contrary to the right to an effective appeal of a judicial act to a higher court. According to the Respondent’s position, an addressee of an investigative action who does not hold the status of an accused, under the applicable legislation, does not have the right to appeal a court ruling declaring the investigative action lawful. For their part, proprietary interests of persons in this category are protected by other legal mechanisms, including the possibility of seeking compensation for damage caused by unlawful procedural actions or decisions. In addition, the Respondent argued that the adoption of the disputed regulation was justified by the need to prevent overburdening the criminal process, to ensure the efficiency and economy of proceedings, and to conserve the court’s time, while the possibility of renewing a missed procedural time limit excluded any substantial obstacle to the exercise of the right.
The Constitutional Court of Georgia held that, in practice, treating the moment of enforcement of a court ruling declaring lawful an investigative action that restricts private property, possession, or the right to privacy as the starting point for calculating the appeal period created a situation in which the person concerned was deprived of the opportunity, within the 48-hour appeal period, to fully acquaint themselves with the court ruling and prepare a reasoned appeal. This situation was caused by the absence, under procedural legislation, of an obligation to proactively serve the court ruling, as well as by the lack of a defined time limit for the court, upon request, to deliver that ruling. As a result, the addressee of the investigative action was compelled to file an unreasoned appeal to the Court of Appeals, which created procedural barriers to the exercise of the right to a fair trial and restricted Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Constitution of Georgia.
According to the Constitutional Court of Georgia, when the addressee of an investigative action does not have access to the reasoned ruling, they are forced to prepare a substantively deficient and unreasoned appeal relying on general information. As a result, the ability of the Court of Appeals to fully examine and assess the factual circumstances of the case, as well as the parties’ arguments, to provide reasons for accepting or rejecting those arguments, and ultimately to correct errors made by the court of first instance is restricted. At the same time, regardless of the degree of substantiation of appeal, the courts of first instance and appeal were not relieved of their obligation to examine the appeal and render a decision. On the contrary, the Court of Appeals had to await the receipt of the reasoned ruling and the subsequent presentation of the complainant’s position regarding the lawfulness of the ruling. Consequently, neither the number nor the scope of issues to be examined and decided by the courts of first instance and appeal was reduced. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court of Georgia concluded that the disputed regulation did not constitute a suitable means of achieving the legitimate aims of preventing the overburdening of court or saving the judicial time resources. At the same time, the legitimate aims of ensuring procedural economy and efficiency likewise remained unattained.
Taking into account all of the above, the Constitutional Court of Georgia declared unconstitutional the normative content of Paragraph 8 of Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, insofar as it provided that, within Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, the time limit for appealing a court ruling on the lawfulness of an investigative action conducted under urgent necessity commenced from the enforcement of the ruling.
Subject of the Dispute: The Constitutionality of Paragraph 8 of Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia in relation to Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Constitution of Georgia.
