On August 19, 2016, the Public Defender addressed Tbilisi Mayor Davit Narmania with a recommendation and demanded annulment of his order on a special (zonal) agreement, according to which, construction intensity index was increased in the vicinity of kindergarten No 39 in the district of Gldani, Tbilisi.

The Public Defender's Office studied citizen M.T.’s application on the legality of the construction of a multistorey residential building by one of the companies near his house. The Tbilisi Mayor signed a special (zonal) agreement for the mentioned area, as a result of which, the construction intensity index was increased. This decision was based on the report of the Council of Regulation of Development and Application of Settled Areas, which is headed by Davit Narmania himself.

The case study revealed that the report did not contain any concrete argument on why the Council considered it appropriate to change the urban development parameters. In addition, interested parties (including the owners of the adjacent plots) did not participate in the Council meeting.

Accordingly, the Mayor’s order on issuance of a special (zonal) agreement is ungrounded, as it relies only on the unjustified decision of the Council and was issued without examination of important circumstances, which, in turn, is at odds with the regulations of the legislation.

It should also be noted that since the decision on special zone agreement and construction permit were issued through a simple administrative procedure, invitation of interested parties at the initial stage of the decision-making would have been the only and very important opportunity for ensuring the principle of transparency and public involvement.

In addition, comprehensive study of circumstances by the administrative authority is even more important given the faulty and ineffective laws that are inconsistent with international regulations. In particular, at this time there does not exist any obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in relation to an activity (in this case, construction), which although may not be on the list of EIA activities, but may have a significant impact on the environment.

The Public Defender explains that the state is obliged to maintain a balance between economic activity and the right to live in a healthy environment. Achievement of attractive and liberal investment environment and promotion of economic development through neglecting the right to live in a healthy environment and high public interest towards creation of legal space is inadmissible. The right to live in a healthy environment focuses not only on the individual but public rights and has a universal importance for human existence and future generations.

The Public Defender believes that the unjustified administrative-legal act issued by the Tbilisi Mayor in violation of the law violates the public and other legal rights and interests. Decision-making without studying the substantial case circumstances deprives both the applicant and other interested parties of the opportunity to realize the right to property and the right to live in a healthy environment, which, in turn, is contrary to the general public interest to ensure basic human rights and principles of legality.