FCTC Implementation and Monitoring Center v. Parliament of Georgia

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Implementation and Monitoring Center in Georgia brought a constitutional claim registered under Article 441 to the Constitutional Court of Georgia on 16 November 2007.

In the opinion of the claimant, the existence of an incomplete legislative framework in connection with the control of tobacco products in Georgia violates the rights protected by the Constitution of life and health in a healthy environment. This leads to the increase of deaths due to the number of smokers and tobacco consumption. The goal of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Implementation and Monitoring Center in Georgia is to monitor the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). The fact that Georgian legislation does not comply with the requirements of the FCTC and other international agreements prevents the applicant organization from carrying out its objectives in full.

The Constitutional Court declined to consider the claim, noting that the Court's role is to define the Constitution and not international agreements and treaties. The Court also concluded that the discussion of the requirement of immediate implementation of the FCTC was beyond its competence.

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Implementation and Monitoring Center against the Parliament of Georgia (2008).

  • Georgia
  • Jun 18, 2008
  • Constitutional Court of Georgia
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff

  • FCTC Implementation and Monitoring Center
  • George Bakhturidze

Defendant Parliament of Georgia

Legislation Cited

Tobacco Control Law (2003)

Constitution of Georgia

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

None

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"As noted, the applicant in the constitutional claim indicates the incompatibility of the disputed norms with other legislative norms as well as the international agreement. The Constitutional Court considers that considering these issues within the scope of Article 89 § 1 of the Constitution of Georgia is impossible and beyond its competence. The Constitutional Court of Georgia has indicated that this provision of the Constitution of Georgia is a special norm and does not provide for determination of compliance with the international agreements of normative acts. The only act under which the Constitutional Court examines the constitutionality of the norm is the Constitution of Georgia and the Constitutional Court's task is to define the constitution and not the international treaties and agreements. (Decision # 2 / 2-389, II, 5)."
"According to Article 45 of the Constitution of Georgia, the basic rights and freedoms referred to in the Constitution are subject to legal entities, subject to their content. The plaintiff as a legal entity is a legal structure, a fictitious, which, as already mentioned, can not be subject to the nature of the right to life in a healthy environment. Thus, these rights do not fall within the limits of the rights that may apply to legal entities, taking into account their content."