On 22 October, Georgia’s Constitutional Court continued hearing a lawsuit filed by the ruling Georgian Dream party in Batumi, seeking to ban (declare unconstitutional) five opposition parties: the United National Movement, Coalition for Change, Lelo – Strong Georgia, Gakharia for Georgia and the Federalists.
Below are the key developments from the second day of hearings. The proceedings remained at the preliminary motions stage, with none of the opposition’s motions granted.
The hearings continue today, 23 October, and are being broadcast live by the Georgian Public Broadcaster.
The court has until 24 June 2027 to issue its final ruling, meaning it still has plenty of time.
Unprecedented case
The main issue raised by the opposition on the second day of hearings was that the lawsuit sought to ban all five parties in one go.
Lelo leader Badri Japaridze told the court that the case was unprecedented, as the parties had no links to one another. He argued that this was particularly true of Lelo, which was founded in late 2019.
Badri Japaridze described a statement by a Georgian Dream leader that the parties would be dissolved within days as disrespectful to the court. He argued that this meant the “verdict had already been delivered”. Presiding judge Revaz Nadaraya responded that the court could not comment on statements made by politicians and that no-one would be able to exert any influence over it.
Georgian Dream MP Archil Gorduladze partially agreed with Japaridze’s argument. He acknowledged that there was indeed no precedent for dissolving five parties in a single proceeding, but argued that there was equally no precedent for five closely linked parties jointly violating Article 23 of the Constitution, which prohibits parties aiming to forcibly change the constitutional order.
Venice Commission
The Lelo party asked the court to invite three experts from the Venice Commission to the hearing to assess whether banning the parties would comply with European democratic standards. Other opposition parties supported the motion, while Georgian Dream opposed it.
However, Revaz Nadaraya dismissed the motion as unfounded, saying that the European legal experts could be heard elsewhere. Nika Gvaramia, co-chair of the Coalition for Change, argued that the Venice Commission was an association of European constitutional courts and that the right to consult it was enshrined in the Organic Law.
The court’s full bench then held consultations and rejected the motion.
The court also rejected another motion by Lelo, requesting that its lawsuit No. 1907, filed on 28 October 2025, be admitted for consideration on its merits. The lawsuit challenges provisions of the Organic Law on Political Associations of Citizens which, according to the party, restrict freedom of association, freedom of expression and political pluralism.
“Lack of trust is not enough reasoning”
Another Lelo representative, Giorgi Sioridze, requested that the Constitutional Court seek an advisory opinion from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on five questions: the criteria under which a political party may be banned, the evidence required, whether a party’s stated objectives or its actual actions should carry greater weight, whether less restrictive measures are available, and what standards should apply when examining a case involving several parties simultaneously.
One of the arguments put forward in support of the motion was a lack of trust in the Constitutional Court. Revaz Nadaraya dismissed this argument as unfounded. He said that although the case was important and unprecedented, this was not sufficient grounds for seeking an advisory opinion from the ECtHR. Nadaraya also added that a national court should not have to ask the European Court whether five parties could be named as co-defendants in the same proceedings.
Evidence and one month to review case materials
The Coalition for Change, meanwhile, requested that evidence be obtained from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Government Administration, that witnesses be identified and that consideration of the case on its merits be postponed.
The coalition also requested that the defendants be given one month to review the case materials. The court’s full bench unanimously rejected the motion. Nadaraya explained that, at this stage, the court was not convinced of the need to obtain additional evidence, as the requested materials relied on the same opinion already included in the case file.
Georgian Dream representatives accused the opposition of attempting to delay the proceedings. According to Archil Gorduladze, the defendants were filing motions that had no legal basis or relevance to the case. Tornike Cheishvili argued that the parties were expressing the same arguments using different terminology and that their motions were virtually identical.
Meanwhile, outside the courtroom…
– Georgia’s Public Defender (ombudsman) has yet to submit a legal opinion (amicus curiae) to the Constitutional Court, despite Lelo calling on him to do so on 19 October. According to First Deputy Public Defender Tamar Gvaramadze, the ombudsman’s office is holding internal discussions and no decision has yet been made.
– Georgian Dream MP Irakli Kadagishvili said it was unacceptable for international actors to make statements intended to put pressure on the court. He argued that such statements served harmful political purposes.
Reactions after the hearing
Berdia Sichinava, a representative of the Gakharia for Georgia party, compared the proceedings to Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial, saying that no-one really knew who was being accused of what. Badri Japaridze also said that, by the end of the second day of hearings, none of the parties understood exactly what Georgian Dream was accusing them of.
Ana Tsitlidze, a representative of the United National Movement, accused the judges of behaving like Georgian Dream activists. According to Lelo representative Irakli Kupradze, the proposed ban would affect not only the parties but also nearly a million Georgian voters.
Ana Buchukuri, a representative of Gakharia for Georgia, suggested that the third day of hearings would also begin with procedural motions. She argued that the court’s refusal to grant any of the motions indicated that a decision had already been made.