Based on Paragraph B of Article 21 of the Georgian Organic Law on the Public Defender of Georgia, the Public Defender has addressed the Mayor of Tbilisi with a recommendation to study the decision of the Didgori District Administration of the City of Tbilisi on the refusal to privatize the living space of citizen Darejan Tsiklauri and to make a decision that corresponds with the law.

On September 23 and December 16, 2011, the Public Defender of Georgia received applications from citizen Darejan Tsiklauri who considered that her request regarding the free-of-charge transfer of the living space that she occupies to her ownership had been denied unlawfully, which violated her rights.

The Public Defender requested and studied all the documents connected with the case.

Ms. Darejan Tsiklauri had addressed the Didgori District Administration of the City of Tbilisi with a request of free-of-charge transfer of the house located at 20 Grishashvili Street in the settlement of Tskneti to her ownership. The District Administration refused to satisfy her aforementioned request (with an individual administrative-legal act). The reason for refusal named by the administrative body was that the documents submitted by the applicant did not make it possible to identify the area indicated in the internal cadastral drawing and the space indicated in the submitted documents.

On September 23, 2010, citizen Darejan Tsiklauri filed an administrative complaint in the Tbilisi City Hall, demanding that the City Hall repeal the September 17, 2010 act of the Didgori District Administration. The Tbilisi City Hall, with an order issued on November 1, 2010, refused to satisfy the complaint of citizen D. Tsiklauri. The administrative body considered that the authorization to occupy the apartment that she presented had been issued on the basis of work relations, had a general character, and didn’t specify the number of the space and the apartment, which is important for the identification of the space.

In the given case, the decision on the refusal of privatization of the living space of citizen D. Tsiklauri was not based on sufficient legal grounds for refusing to satisfy the request for privatization of a living or non-living space of the lawful user, since Paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Rule of Free-of-Charge Transfer of Unprivatized Living and Non-Living Space to the Ownership of Lawful Users by the Executive Bodies of Self-Government directly determines the grounds for refusing to satisfy such a request. In particular, if the documents submitted by the lawful user do not confirm the applicant’s right to lawful use of the living or non-living space, the executive body of the local self-government is to make a decision on the refusal to satisfy the request. In the given case, the fact of lawful use by citizen Darejan Tsiklauri is confirmed by the documents enclosed with the request submitted by her

Proceeding from the aforementioned, it has been established that there are factual and legal preconditions that confirm that the preparation and issuance of the decision of the Didgori District Administration of the City of Tbilisi, or the individual administrative-legal act, violated the requirements established by the legislation, which, pursuant to Parts 1 and 2 of Article 601 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, creates grounds for the nullity of the individual administrative-legal act.