Coalition for Change files motion with Constitutional Court requesting that, in the event of a ruling to ban political parties, Court establish a unified date for the enforcement of the decision—specifically, a period of at least one month

The Coalition for Change has submitted a motion to the Constitutional Court proposing that, should the claim against the defendants be upheld—resulting in a ban on the parties—the Court should set a specific timeframe for the enforcement of this ruling, stipulating that it take effect one month after the decision is issued.

According to Nika Gvaramia, the core of the motion concerns the timing of when the ruling’s consequences take effect. He clarified that the motion does not pertain to the moment the decision is announced; rather, the requested one-month period would be calculated from the time of the announcement.

Furthermore, Gvaramia emphasized that the filing of this motion does not imply an expectation that the claim will be upheld, nor does it constitute an admission of any facts or circumstances. The defendant requests that the court provide an answer to two conditional questions: first, if the claim is satisfied, will the judgment establish a distinct timeframe for the prohibition and the occurrence of its consequential effects, and will this timeframe be at least one month from the date the judgment is announced? The respondent requests that, in the event the Court grants the claim against the respondent, the judgment itself should specify a deferred date for the prohibition and all its attendant consequences—including those stipulated in Article 23, Paragraph 3 of the Organic Law of Georgia on the Constitutional Court of Georgia, primarily the cancellation of the respondent’s registration—setting this date no earlier than one month from the pronouncement of the judgment, and establishing a single, unified date for the onset of these consequences. The timeframe for the occurrence of these consequences shall form part of the operative (resolutive) part of the Court’s judgment. Furthermore, the respondent requests that the Court, prior to the parties’ closing arguments, confirm that it will establish such a timeframe should the claim be granted. The respondent requests that this motion be resolved at the present stage—rather than being deferred until the final judgment—so that the parties may incorporate the Court’s response into their closing arguments.

“The respondent’s position regarding the merits of the case remains unchanged: the claim against it is factually unsubstantiated and legally groundless, and therefore should not be granted. This motion does not imply an anticipation that the claim will be granted, nor does it constitute an admission of any circumstances”, said Gvaramia.

Constitutional Court Judge Eva Gotsiridze commented on the rationale behind the motion, noting that the objective is to ensure that the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of the European Court [of Human Rights] does not lose its effectiveness—specifically, to enable the European Court to issue a timely instruction to the Constitutional Court to refrain from enforcing a decision.

"When the Constitutional Court defers the effect of a legal norm, the purpose is to prevent the emergence of a legal vacuum—which could occur if a norm declared unconstitutional were to lose its force immediately—thereby leaving certain legal relations entirely unregulated. Consequently, Parliament or the body that issued the act is generally granted a period of time to devise a new, replacement regulation; this serves the public interest by ensuring that specific legal relations do not remain unregulated. In this instance, however, you are presenting a completely different rationale: as I understand it, the objective is to ensure that the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of the European Court does not lose its effectiveness, allowing the European Court to issue a timely instruction to the Constitutional Court not to execute the decision. Article 39 implies an order to the national authorities to do something or to refrain from doing something,” stated Eva Gotsiridze.