REVIEW OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GEORGIA IN THE VIEW OF SUSPENSION OF DISPUTED NORM

Abstract

In recent years the number of cases in which plaintiffs ask for suspension of the disputed norm has grown, and this proves the topicality of the issue. Moreover, based on the judicial practice of the Constitutional Court it is evident that often motions presented with the query to suspend norm are not approved, which in most occasions is the result of incorrect formulation of the request from the plaintiff’s side. Hence, the purpose of the article is to analyze the procedure used by the Constitutional Court of Georgia for making decision on the suspension of disputed norm and outline those criteria, which are used by the Court while making such decision.

Based on the systemic and logical analysis of the judicial practice of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, the article gives exhaustive information on the procedure of suspension of disputed norm.

In parallel with demonstrating judicial practice of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, the article criticizes the part of the Georgian legislation according to which it is inadmissible to suspend norm only in relation to the plaintiff.

Information presented in the article is kind of a guideline on applying Constitutional Court of Georgia with the motion on suspension of norm and it is useful for students, as well as for practitioner lawyers.