On December 23, the Constitutional Court of Georgia held a substantive hearing on a lawsuit filed by journalist Giorgi Arobelidze against Parliament. The claimant argues that the legal provision under which he was detained is unconstitutional. The journalist was detained in Batumi at a bar after he witnessed another person’s arrest and asked police officers: “Why are you detaining them?”
The incident dates back to 2021. Journalists Giorgi Arobelidze and Rati Ratiani of the media platform Mautskebeli were detained under Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences (insulting a police officer or disobeying a lawful order). At the time, the journalists stated that they had asked why other individuals were being detained at a bar. The journalists were beaten at Batumi Police Department No. 6.
As in many similar cases, no investigation was conducted into the alleged violence by police officers. Instead, on February 28, 2022, the Batumi City Court found Giorgi Arobelidze guilty of an administrative offence and fined him 2,000 GEL.
Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences is most commonly used against participants in protest rallies. The article covers insulting a police officer or disobeying a lawful order of a police officer.
Under this article, Mzia Amaglobeli was detained during a protest on January 11, 2025. She was tried twice for placing a sticker on a fence belonging to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The court found that resistance had taken place, although the judge failed to identify any specific factual circumstances confirming this conclusion.
“The factual data in the case file and the materials submitted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs show that Giorgi Arobelidze’s alleged interference with the detention of G.L. by police officers consisted of verbal protest expressed in the phrase ‘Why are you detaining [them]?’ which objectively could not have obstructed the implementation of the police operation. The court did not assess how, in the specific circumstances of the incident, the words spoken by the claimant interfered with the police operation (detention) or the maintenance of public order,” the lawsuit states.
The claimant challenges the normative content of the disputed provision insofar as Article 173(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences qualifies as disobedience a verbal request or demand addressed to law enforcement officers to stop a police operation (a verbal appeal, protest, or spontaneous remark) that does not constitute an insult.
According to Giorgi Arobelidze, the disputed provision violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.
The claimant also argues that the contested norm has a chilling effect on freedom of expression due to the vague terminology used in the provision. In his view, the regulation restricts freedom of expression more than intended by the legislature and more than is necessary in a democratic society.
“We believe that, among the alternative actions described in the disposition, the notion of disobedience to a lawful order or demand is vague and fails to meet the requirements of foreseeability and legal certainty.
The legislator not only fails to specify the limits of action of the executing official when defining disobedience to a lawful police order, but grants that official unlimited discretion to determine the scope and content of disobedience.
The law does not allow individuals to foresee which actions may lead to liability.
As a result, the decision as to which actions constitute grounds for administrative liability is made by the person issuing the order, rather than by Parliament. A clear example of this is the claimant’s case, where a verbal expression that did not constitute an insult and did not obstruct or pose a real risk of obstructing a police operation was deemed disobedience to a lawful order.
Moreover, courts lack a uniform guiding standard for assessing what constitutes interference with a police operation and what does not, as evidenced by inconsistent judicial practice, which will be discussed below,” the lawsuit reads.
The case was heard on the merits by the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, chaired by Judge Manana Kobakhidze. If the Court upholds Giorgi Arobelidze’s claim, Parliament will be required to amend the contested article.
To date, the Constitutional Court has considered a number of high-profile cases, including the “secret surveillance case.” However, more than six years have passed since the completion of proceedings in that particular case, and the Court has yet to deliver a decision.