On August 16, 2017, the Public Defender of Georgia addressed Tbilisi City Hall’s commission on recognition of the right to ownership of lands owned by physical persons and legal persons of private law with regard to the violation of the rights and legal interests of M.M., L.M. and L.M.

The applicant indicated in his application to the Public Defender that he and his family members were denied recognition of property rights on the motive that the requested plot of land was not fenced and its possession-use could not be proved, even though the family removed the fence in the summer of 2007 after the Supervision Municipal Service had requested to do so.

The Public Defender's Office established that the commission’s decision on the refusal to recognize the property rights was annulled by a number of court judgments, according to which, the commission had to examine and evaluate specific circumstances of the case. Notwithstanding this, the final decision of the commission not only did not provide broader justification of the annulled decisions, but the issue was formally decided with a direct reference to the fact that no arbitrary occupation or possession of the plot of land had been confirmed.

The Public Defender considers that when acting within the discretionary powers, it is required to show particularly high quality of written justification by referring to substantial circumstances, since justification is important to rule out arbitrariness, while its non-consideration serves as grounds for establishment of a mistake in the exercise of the discretion and annulment of the act. The Public Defender also stressed that the court's instruction on the necessity of the study and examination of certain circumstances has mandatory power for the administrative body.

Accordingly, the Public Defender addressed Tbilisi City Hall’s commission on recognition of the right to ownership of lands owned by physical persons and legal persons of private law to annul the decision on refusing recognition of the applicant’s ownership rights and make new decisions in relation to M.M., L.M. and L.M. as a result of thorough examination of the circumstances indicated in the court’s judgments.