Eva Gotsiridze to Maia Kopaleishvili: Isn’t it possible that I might not understand something and need to clarify it? Don’t look for a black cat where there isn’t one; your comment suggesting that I had not read the complaint was completely inappropriate

“Isn’t it possible that I might not understand something and need to clarify it? Don’t look for a black cat where there isn’t one. I genuinely wanted to understand what your position meant, and your comments suggesting that I had not read the complaint were completely inappropriate,” Judge Eva Gotsiridze said in response to a remark by Maia Kopaleishvili, a representative of the Coalition for Change, during a Constitutional Court hearing on a lawsuit seeking to ban opposition parties. Kopaleishvili had said she was left with the impression that Gotsiridze had not properly examined the constitutional complaint.

“According to your interpretation, does the phrase ‘storming Parliament’ imply entering Parliament in a manner involving the use of violence? Is that what you meant?

Isn’t it possible that I might not understand something and need to clarify it? Don’t look for a black cat where there isn’t one. I genuinely wanted to understand what your position meant, and your comments suggesting that I had not read the complaint were completely inappropriate,” Judge Eva Gotsiridze said.

In response, Kopaleishvili said the judge’s questions reinforced her impression that Gotsiridze was not sufficiently familiar with the contents of the complaint.

“That was the impression I got from your questions. These issues are extremely important to us, yet you consider them less important.

It is important to us that you assess these issues not on the basis of the plaintiffs’ political assessments, but according to the standards applicable in law. My position is that the matter should be assessed according to the relevant legal standards in relation to the specific facts presented in the complaint,” Kopaleishvili said.

Judge Eva Gotsiridze disagreed with Kopaleishvili’s characterization of her position.

“No, I did not say that [they were less important]. I said that I was not familiar with ‘attempted storming of Parliament’ as a legal term,” the judge said.

Another representative of the respondent party, Nika Gvaramia, joined the dispute, explaining that the term referred to a criminal offense.

“It is a criminal offense. What do you mean you are not familiar with it? It is a term—it’s not a Latin word, just a term,” Gvaramia said.

The dispute in the Constitutional Court chamber was sparked by Judge Eva Gotsiridze’s question about whether “attempted storming of Parliament” exists as a legal term.

“Ms. Eva, I get the impression that you have not examined the constitutional complaint from the appropriate perspective. Do you know why I have this impression? For example, you failed to pay attention to details that the plaintiff is deliberately using against us,” Maia Kopaleishvili had responded.