Revaz Nadaraia: The Plenum has ruled that the motion by the Coalition for Change should not be granted—granting it would be a legal nonsense
The Plenum of the Constitutional Court has rejected a motion filed by the Coalition for Change. The motion requested that, in the event of a decision to ban the political parties, the Constitutional Court establish a period of at least one month before the enforcement of its ruling.
The Plenum of the Constitutional Court reached this decision through on-the-spot deliberation.
As stated by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Revaz Nadaraia, granting this motion at the current stage is not supported by the Constitution or any legal norms; doing so would constitute a legal nonsense.
"The Plenum has ruled that the motion presented by the Coalition for Change—which is supported by all the respondent parties—shall not be granted. This decision is final. The circumstances are as follows: Pursuant to Article 60, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution of Georgia, an act—or a part thereof—declared unconstitutional loses its legal force from the moment the Constitutional Court publishes its relevant decision, unless that decision specifies a different, later date for the loss of such force. Article 25, Paragraph 3 of the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court of Georgia stipulates the same. A ruling by the Constitutional Court must be executed immediately upon its publication, unless the ruling itself establishes a different timeframe. The Constitutional Court considers that granting a request to postpone the execution of a decision—and issuing a separate procedural order to that effect—is inconsistent with both the Constitution and the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court of Georgia. The spirit of the law dictates that the question of whether to postpone the execution of an act must be addressed within the very decision concerning that act. At this preliminary stage, neither the Constitution nor the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court provides for a commitment—made via a court ruling—to grant a postponement at a later time. Granting this motion at the current stage is not supported by the Constitution or any legal norms; doing so would be a legal absurdity. The Plenum is unanimous in this regard," stated Revaz Nadaraia.
For context, the Coalition for Change filed a motion with the Constitutional Court requesting that, should the Court rule in favor of the claim—that is, decide to ban the political parties—it should also specify a timeframe for the enforcement of this decision, setting it for one month after the ruling is issued.
According to Nika Gvaramia, the core of the motion concerns the timing of when the outcome takes effect. He clarified that the motion does not pertain to the moment the decision is announced; rather, the requested timeframe would be calculated from the date of the announcement. Furthermore, Gvaramia emphasized that the motion neither presupposes that the claim will be upheld nor constitutes an admission of any facts or circumstances.
