The Social Justice Center has filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court, addressing the administrative practice of arbitrarily denying entry to Georgia for foreigners. The mentioned practice often serves as a basis for discriminatory treatment by the authorities.

More specifically, through the filed lawsuit, the Social Justice Center is petitioning the Constitutional Court to declare Article 11, Paragraph 1, Sub-Clause "i" of the Law "On the Legal Status of alience and Stateless Persons" unconstitutional. This provision states that " An alien may be refused a Georgian visa or entry into Georgia in other cases provided for by the legislation of Georgia." The application of the mentioned norm reveals that law enforcement bodies, in their decisions, seldom specify the particular conditions or legal provisions under which they deny entry to Georgia for a foreigner. Typically, in practice, this pertains to lists compiled by law enforcement bodies themselves, lacking clear rules and standards for the entry and removal of specific individuals. This situation poses significant risks of arbitrariness. Several critical activists, journalists, researchers, and non-citizens with historical ties to Georgia, such as repatriated Muslim Meskhetians, Georgians from Fereida, and Ossetians forcibly displaced from Georgia, have been denied entry to Georgia citing this article.

In the lawsuit, the disputed norm is challenged in relation to the principle of equality recognized by Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Georgia, and Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution (principle of fair administrative proceedings). specifically:

1. In connection with the right to equality, we assert that the practice established by the Ministry of Internal Affairs applies the contested norm without specifying a particular legal basis. Due to the undefined content of the contested norm, it grants the administrative body broad discretion. This lack of specificity results in differentiation without reasonable criteria, opening the door to potentially discriminatory use of the norm. Notably, the contested norm separates groups of individuals. On one hand, there are those denied entry to Georgia based on the unspecified grounds outlined in Article 11, Paragraph 1, Sub-Clause "i" of the Law. On the other hand, there are individuals refused entry on a specific legal basis. Consequently, the disputed norm subjects equal groups of persons to different legal standards, employing a blanket mechanism for denying entry to Georgia for one group while obligating the other to specify a particular legal basis for the denial.
2. Furthermore, the principle of legal certainty necessitates the establishment of a legal system that safeguards individuals from the arbitrariness of law enforcement body. The contested norm allows the administrative body to curtail an individual's right to a fair administrative proceeding without predetermined criteria or guidelines. It's important to note that a foreigner denied entry to Georgia based on the contested norm lacks access to the data upon which the decision was made, even if the decision is appealed. In addition, in the conditions when the contested norm does not contain any reference or guiding rule necessary for making a decision, the judge loses all leverage to control the extent of discretionary powers exercised by the administrative body, rendering judicial oversight over its activities ephemeral.

The Social Justice Centre expresses optimism that the Constitutional Court will expeditiously deliberate on the appeal it has submitted and provide assistance in the successful enforcement of the constitutional rights that have been infringed upon for hundreds of individuals.

The Social Justice Center is conducting this case with the support of the USAID Rule of Law Program.

Share