The Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) has filed a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court on behalf of Georgian emigrant citizens living in France. The new regulation of the Election Code, which prohibits the opening of polling stations in the buildings of Georgian embassies and consulates abroad, is being challenged.

According to GYLA, the aforementioned prohibition contradicts the universal right to vote guaranteed by Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Georgia. The new regulation does not serve any legitimate constitutional purpose. In fact, it creates artificial financial and social barriers, in the form of high travel costs, forced absence from work, and other related pressures, which push hundreds of thousands of Georgian emigrants to effectively give up their right to participate in elections. It should be noted that the income earned by emigrants abroad is often critically important for both the emigrants themselves and their family members.

The practice of the Constitutional Court considers restrictions on the right to vote of Georgian citizens living abroad permissible only in cases where the state does not have sufficient resources to open polling stations in all cities. At the same time, many years of experience in parliamentary elections have shown that, since the 1990s, polling stations have consistently been opened at Georgian embassies and consulates in other countries, and the state has always had both the material and human resources to ensure the free expression of voters’ will at these locations.

It is precisely these buildings that fall under the jurisdiction of Georgia, rather than the law of the host state, which means that the Georgian election administration has a full opportunity to organize elections in a manner that ensures the free expression of voters’ will without any interference from the host state. Nevertheless, the Georgian Dream justifies the new regulation by referring to the need to prevent interference by foreign states in Georgian elections.

The recognition of the disputed norm as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court would lead to the reopening of polling stations in Georgian embassies and diplomatic institutions abroad during elections. Thus, in terms of protecting the right to vote, the Constitutional Court remains the main domestic mechanism through which citizens can defend their constitutional rights. At the same time, it is important to note that, particularly in recent years, delays in the consideration of cases of great legal, social, and political importance have seriously undermined the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court as a mechanism for the protection of human rights.¹ Delays in cases with a significant impact on human rights cause irreparable harm to the very rights these lawsuits are intended to protect.

GYLA is not limited to this lawsuit and plans, in the near future, to continue strategic litigation on behalf of another group of emigrants regarding universal suffrage.

1 Despite the fact that the lawsuit is declared admissible, for the second year in a row the Constitutional Court has not scheduled a substantive hearing regarding the so-called “Russian law”. As for the so-called “FARA”, the Constitutional Court has so far only decided that this issue is to be decided by the plenum, not by the panel. Despite this, the Constitutional Court has not yet decided on the admissibility of the lawsuits filed regarding FARA and the Law on Grants.