On October 24, 2024, the Constitutional Court granted the constitutional lawsuit of the Public Defender against Tbilisi City Assembly.

The Public Defender disputed the normative content of the resolution of the City Assembly, according to which, the special parking conditions necessary for the movement of persons with disabilities applied only to the part of persons with disabilities, namely, only to persons with severe disability status and persons with an amputated lower limb, while persons with moderately and significantly expressed disabilities (who do not have a lower limb amputation, but have other mobility impairment) cannot enjoy the special parking conditions. According to the position of the Public Defender of Georgia, the possibility to use special parking space should be related to the individual needs of persons with disabilities, specifically, to the mobility impairment.

The Constitutional Court of Georgia explained that the use of special parking conditions by persons with disabilities, such as exemption from time limitation and zonal parking fees, as well as the allocation of a larger than standard parking lot and its maximum proximity to the objects of public importance, are essentially and practically related to the disability to move independently. Therefore, people with such disabilities need parking spaces adapted to their condition in the vicinity of the main public facilities, in order to reduce as much as possible the barriers that are associated with their disability to move independently.

The Court explained that, on the basis of the disputed norms, a blanket regulation is established, under the conditions of which, a special sign is assigned to all persons with severe disabilities, including those who do not require special assistance arising from the mobility impartment. Contrary to the mentioned, the disputed norms leave persons with moderately and significantly expressed disabilities (except persons with an amputated lower limb), who, as mentioned, may have problems with moving independently beyond the above-mentioned benefit. This approach, in the opinion of the Court, lacks a rational explanation. Therefore, the established differentiation is not rationally aimed at assisting persons with disabilities who require assistance when moving. Based on the above, the Court recognized the disputed regulation as unconstitutional in relation to the first paragraph of Article 11 of the Constitution of Georgia.

The ruling of the Constitutional Court is available at: https://bit.ly/3Uq35ve