Government - President Dispute: Parliament Adopts Amendment to Organic Law on Constitutional Law at Final Hearing
By Natalia Kochiashvili
Friday, April 15, 2022
By 83 votes to 6, the Parliament supported in the third reading the amendment to the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court, which addresses the issue of disputes between the powers of the constitutional bodies. Thus Parliament has paved the way for the Government to launch a competence dispute with the President, after lawmakers pushed through amendments to the Law on Constitutional Court in the final hearing.
According to the amendment, any state body - the President of Georgia, the Parliament of Georgia, the Government of Georgia, the High Council of Justice, the Prosecutor General, the Board of the National Bank, the Auditor General, the Public Defender, the High Representation of the Autonomous Republic or the executive body - have the right to file a constitutional complaint in the Constitutional Court if their constitutional authority was fully or partially violated by their legal act, action or inaction. The previous iteration of the law allowed launching a dispute primarily over the compliance of normative acts issued by the defendant.
According to the draft, the satisfaction of a constitutional claim by a Constitutional Court results in declaration of a legal act or part of it or an action or omission that has fully or partially violated the constitutional authority of the plaintiff as unconstitutional. When determining the constitutionality of a normative act, the Constitutional Court verifies its content in accordance with the Constitution of Georgia.
The law will enter into force upon publication.
The ruling party Georgian Dream unveiled the legislation in late March, soon after announcing the Government sought to sue President Salome Zurabishvili for pursuing foreign policy by side-stepping the executive branch. Party claimed the President had violated the Constitution on several occasions, including by unauthorized visits to Paris and Brussels, as well as refusals to sign off on several candidates for foreign service posts. GD argued that the President’s role in signing off on diplomatic nominees is merely ceremonial as per the constitution.
“The Government of Georgia is obliged to apply to the Constitutional Court in the near future within the framework of the dispute over the competencies of the Court and to request confirmation of the violation of the Constitution by the President of Georgia,” the GD’s statement from March, read.
The statement also said that in violation of the constitutional reservation, without the consent of the Georgian government, the President of Georgia, as she herself admitted at parliament, made several visits to different countries.
An extensive statement issued by the Georgian Dream party also mentioned several cases that the ruling party considers unconstitutional by the president, including the issue of ambassadors.
“The appointment of ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives is one of the most important tools for the implementation of foreign policy. The relevant act is issued with the co-signature of the President and the Prime Minister, and according to the Constitution, political responsibility for such an act rests solely with the government… the president formally appoints ambassadors, and the government is politically and practically responsible for their selection.
Over the past year, there have been a number of cases in which the president has refused to appoint an ambassador or a diplomatic representative nominated by the government, which is grossly contrary to the Constitution of Georgia,” the statement said.
Thus the introduction of the key amendments for launching the dispute was seen as an ‘attempt at political revenge against the President’ by the NGO Georgian Young Lawyers Association.
