Constitutional Submissions by General Courts in Georgia: Judicial Practice, Procedural Challenges, and Institutional Implications
Abstract
The Constitution of Georgia establishes a centralized model of constitutional review entrusted to the Constitutional Court. Within this framework, courts of general jurisdiction participate in constitutional adjudication through the mechanism of constitutional submission, which allows them to suspend proceedings and refer questions of constitutionality to the Constitutional Court. Despite its structural importance, this mechanism has received limited doctrinal and theoretical analysis in Georgian legal scholarship.
This article examines the procedural requirements, admissibility standards, and institutional implications of constitutional submissions filed by general courts. Employing doctrinal interpretation, comparative constitutional analysis with reference to the German referral model under Article 100(1) of the Basic Law, and case-law analysis of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, the study moves beyond descriptive review and critically evaluates the structural function of constitutional submission within a centralized constitutional system.
The findings demonstrate that the Georgian framework contains interpretative ambiguities concerning the obligation to refer, inconsistencies in admissibility standards, and weaknesses in the legal consequences and enforcement of Constitutional Court decisions. More importantly, the article argues that constitutional submission should be conceptualized not merely as a procedural safeguard but as a structural instrument of judicial dialogue that directly affects constitutional supremacy and the effective protection of fundamental rights.
By reframing constitutional submission as a mechanism of institutional interaction rather than a purely technical procedural device, the article contributes to constitutional law scholarship and proposes targeted legislative reforms aimed at clarifying referral obligations, strengthening enforcement guarantees, and enhancing the coherence of constitutional review in Georgia.
Downloads
PlumX Statistics
References
2. Constitutional Court of Georgia. (1997). Ruling No. 2/57/1.
3. Constitutional Court of Georgia. (1997, July 21). Decision No. 1/51.
4. Constitutional Court of Georgia. (1998, October 28). Ruling No. 1/8/90.
5. Constitutional Court of Georgia. (1999, April 1). Decision No. 2/88/1.
6. Constitutional Court of Georgia. (1999, April 22). Ruling No. 1/3/99.
7. Constitutional Court of Georgia. (2002, July 10). Decision No. 9/189.
8. Constitutional Court of Georgia. (2015, September 29). Decision No. 3/1/608,609.
9. Constitutional Court of Georgia. (2022, April 21). Decision No. 3/4/1648.
10. Demetrashvili, A. (2000). Guarantees of the Constitutional Court in protecting constitutional rights. Human and Constitution, (4).
11. Gabunia, E. (2019). “Real” control in the system of constitutional justice of Georgia. Constitutional Law Journal, (2), 55–68.
12. Germany. (1949). Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
13. Grimm, D. (2016). The constitution of European democracy. Oxford University Press.
14. Hamdorf, K. (2011). Die Zulässigkeitsvoraussetzungen der Richtervorlage zum Bundesverfassungsgericht und zu den Verfassungsgerichten der Länder.
15. Kakhiani, G. (2008). The institution of constitutional review and its functional problems in Georgia: Analysis of legislation and practice. In Advances in Georgian legal studies.
16. Kelsen, H. (1942). Judicial review of legislation: A comparative study of the Austrian and the American constitution. The Journal of Politics, 4(2), 183–200.
17. Khamaladze, V. (2000). The role of the Constitutional Court and prospects for increasing its efficiency. Human and Constitution, (4).
18. Khubua, G., & Traut, I. (2001). Constitutional justice in Germany. GTZ.
19. Kommer, D. P., & Miller, R. A. (2012). The constitutional jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany (3rd ed.). Duke University Press.
20. Kverenchkchiladze, G. (2006). Legal protection of the Constitution (General and theoretical issues). Human and Constitution, (3).
21. Organic Law of Georgia on the Constitutional Court. (1996). Organic Law of Georgia on the Constitutional Court.
22. Organic Law of Georgia on General Courts. (1997). Organic Law of Georgia on General Courts.
23. Robbers, G. (2005). Verfassungsprozessuale Probleme in der öffentlich-rechtlichen Arbeit.
24. Samkharadze, S. (2019). The effectiveness of submitting an individual constitutional claim during the consideration of cases in common courts. Constitutional Law Journal, (1), 107–122.
25. Schlaich, P., & Korioth, H. (2004). Das Bundesverfassungsgericht – Stellung, Verfahren, Entscheidungen.
26. Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with judges: Constitutional politics in Europe. Oxford University Press.
27. Umbach, C., Clemens, T., & Dollinger, F.-W. (2005). Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz: Mitarbeiterkommentar und Handbuch.
28. Zoide, B. (2004). Conditions for the enforcement of Constitutional Court decisions. Human and Constitution, (4).
29. Zoide, O. (2000). The role, trends, and prospects of the Constitutional Court. Human and Constitution, (4).
Copyright (c) 2026 Tamar Urushadze
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
