Considerations regarding the judgement of the Constitutional Court of Georgia – Response to David Sulakvelidze’s commentarry

Abstract

The substance and the scope of the legal force of the Constitutional Court’s judgment are defined by the Constitution of Georgia (Article 89.2) and legislation regarding the Constitutional Court (Article 25.1 and Article 43.8 of the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court of Georgia).

However, in practice, the judgment is effective only if the result of its enforcement is adequate to the substance of the judgment. From this point of view, for the purpose of the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court’s judgments, it is important to first read them correctly and then to think about their enforcement. Naturally, the resolution of this issue is not dependent solely on the enforcer’s ability and skills. It is dependent on whether the judgment itself allows for correct interpretation. Every judgment is valuable in two respects. Of course, it is essential that the position of the court be correct as the constitutionality of the norm must be resolved correctly. However, it is of no less importance for the grounds underlying the court’s position to be adequately justified. The position given in the judgment and the relevant arguments should be clear and unambiguous and there should be clear indications of the grounds or the reasons as to why the impugned provision is constitutional, or why it is not.

To what extent a judgment satisfies these criteria and is thus effective – and having knowledge of this fact – is important for the court. The court itself should have the ability to see the problems of the enforcement of its judgments so that it may predict and resolve similar issues in the future. If the court will not be ready to receive opinions on its judgments, including critical ones, then it will not be able to develop and contribute to the development of the law.

In general, in every sphere, development is conditioned by the existence of diverse opinions, the exchange of views, and criticism. In terms of the effectiveness of the judgments of the Constitutional Court, it is important to have discussions about them. Naturally, the best path is to do this is to receive opinions and assessments from lawyers, scholars and members of society at large in order to analyse the problems associated with the enforcement of the judgments.