FCTC Implementation and Monitoring Center v. Parliament of Georgia
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Implementation and Monitoring Center against the Parliament of Georgia (2008).
- Jun 18, 2008
- Constitutional Court of Georgia
- FCTC Implementation and Monitoring Center
- George Bakhturidze
Defendant Parliament of Georgia
Tobacco Control Law (2003)
Constitution of Georgia
Type of Litigation
Action against Government to Advance the Public Interest
An individual or organization may sue their own government in order to advance or protect the public interest. For example, an NGO may sue the government claiming the government’s weak tobacco control laws violated their constitutional right to health.
Tobacco Control Topics
Right to Life
A violation of the right to not be killed by another person. Arguments may also be similar or tied to right to health arguments.
Right to a Healthy and Safe Environment
A violation of the right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
Type of Tobacco Product
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.