Important decisions

Identification: GEO-1997-1 -001
a) Georgia / b) Constitutional Court / c) First Chamber / d) 20.02.1997 / e) 1/3/21 / f) Citizen 0. Zoidze v. President of Georgia / g) Official gazette / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
General Principles - Separation of powers.
Institutions - Executive bodies - Powers.
Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights - Right to property.
Fundamental Rights-Civil and political rights-Rights in respect of taxation.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Government, taxation, imposition.

Headnotes:
According to Article 94 of the Constitution taxes and duties must be paid in the amount and order defined by law. Thus the imposition of taxes by the Executive violates the principle of separation of powers and infringes the constitutional right to property since Article 94 of the Constitution empowers only the legislature to impose taxes and duties and to define rules for their payment.

Summary:
The plaintiff, a Georgian citizen, appealed to the Constitutional Court of Georgia against the unconstitutionality of the temporary regulation on Imposition of Tax on Environmental Pollution and Rules of Payment adopted by the Government, and referred to Article 94 of the Constitution which provides that taxes and duties must be paid in the amount and order defined by law. Article 21 of the Constitution ensures the right to property and tacitly empowers the legislature to protect property from illegal encroachment against it. Thus the imposition of unconstitutional taxes breaches the right to property.
The Constitutional Court holds that the adoption of the normative act by the Executive, which defines the amount and rules of payment of a certain tax, is impermissible and in conflict with Article 94 of the Constitution; additionally it violates the principle of separation of powers enshrined in Article 5 of the Constitution.
Thereto Article 106.2 of the Constitution states that the President and Parliament of Georgia undertake to promulgate and ensure the compliance of normative acts with the Constitution and legislation of Georgia within a two-year term from the Constitution's entry into force. In this respect the Constitutional Court indicated that Article 106 of the Constitution does not provide for the unconditional enforcement of unconstitutional legal acts for two years; this would otherwise prevent the Constitu-tional Court from considering the constitutionality of such normative acts.

Languages: Georgian, English.

Identification: GEO-1997-1 -002
a) Georgia / b) Constitutional Court / c) Second Chamber / d) 25.03.1997 / e) 2/31 -5 / f) Citizen L. Purtskhvanidze v. Parliament of Georgia / g) Official Gazette / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Institutions - Courts - Jurisdiction.
Fundamental Rights-Civil and political rights-Right to property.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Residence, tenancy contract, eviction.

Headnotes:
Article 154 of the Residential Code of Georgia provides that a tenancy contract may only be terminated on the basis of the owner's demand if a Court determines that the owner or members of his or her family may use the apartment for their personal needs. This provision is unconstitutional since it prevents owners from exercising their right to property, in particular their right to possess, use and dispose of property, which is entrenched in Article 21 of the Constitution of Georgia.

Summary:
The Supreme Court of Georgia had rejected a civil claim by the plaintiff for the eviction of tenants from his private apartment holding that under Article 154 of the Residential Code of Georgia an owner may only suspend a tenancy contract following a court's verification that the premises are urgently required for the personal needs of the owner and members of his family. This requirement was not fulfilled.
Following the rejection of this claim, the plaintiff appealed to the Constitutional Court against the unconstitutionality of Article 154 of the Residential Code as it was in conflict with Article 21 of the Constitution which ensures the universal right to property, and in particular the right to dispose of property freely.
Although Article 21.2 of the Constitution provides that the restriction of the right to property is permissible in cases of public emergency as provided for by the law, in the present case the Constitutional Court held that there was no sufficient social necessity for the restriction of the constitutional right.

Languages:Georgian, English.