The Public Defender filed an amicus curie brief with the Constitutional Court regarding two lawsuits. The constitutional lawsuits dispute paragraph 3³ of Article 22 of the Law of Georgia on Agricultural Land Ownership, according to which, the foreign citizens’ right to buy agricultural land is suspended until the the new edition of the Constitution of Georgia does not take effect.

Applicants in the mentioned cases are Creek citizens of Georgian origin. In one of the cases, the applicant cannot realize his right to property in relation to a house built by him, as well as its accompanying agricultural land, while another applicant cannot enjoy the same right in relation to the property inherited by him from his parents.

The Public Defender of Georgia considers that the disputed norm introduces a hypothetical legal regulation envisaged by the new editon of the Constitution, which has not yet taken effect, against the current constitutional-legal order and thus contradicts the current edition of the Constitution.

It should also be noted that the Constitutional Court has already recognized a restriction of the same content as unconstitutional due to its contradiction to the universal right to property enshirned in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of Article 21 of the Constitution of Georgia. (Judgement No. 3/1/512 of 26 June 2012 in the case of Danish citizen Heike Cronqvistv. Parliament of Georgia).

Based on the above, the Public Defender of Georgia considers that the disputed norm, on the one hand, violates the right to property enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of Georgia and on the other hand, represents an attempt to overcome the respective decision of the Constitutional Court.

Therefore, the Public Defender considers that the Constitutional Court should invalidate the disputed norm under accelerated and simplified procedures until the new Constitution does not take effect, in accordance with paragraph 4¹ of Article 25 of the Organic Law of Georgia on the Constitutional Court, based on the judgement passed at the preliminary hearing.

In accordance with paragraph 4¹ of Article 25 of the Organic Law of Georgia on the Constitutional Court, if the Constitutional Court decides at the preliminary hearing that the controversial normative act or its part contains norms of the same content that had already been recognized as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, it shall pass a judgement on non-consideration of a case on its merits and invalidation of the disputable norm or its part.