Categories
Journalistic Survey
Articles
Reportage
Analitic
Photo Reportage
Exclusive
Interview
Foreign Media about Georgia
Editorial
Position
Reader's opinion
Blog
Themes
Children's Rights
Women's Rights
Justice
Refugees/IDPs
Minorities
Media
Army
Health
Corruption
Elections
Education
Penitentiary
Religion
Others

One More Example of Selective Justice: One Can Own It, But the other Cannot!

February 10, 2011
Sopo Getsadze

The Kalandadzes have been arguing in Mtskheta district for several months. The family requests legalization of the part of the ravine which was registered to their next-door neighbor several months ago. The lawyer of the Human Rights Center said it is classic example of the “optional justice.”

“The dry stream ravine near our yard has lost its function nowadays because our next-door neighbor Avto Cholokava was filling it up for many years and closed the part of the ravine which borders his house. In doing so, he did not give the stream an alternative bed to flow,” said Lasha Kalandadze.

The Human Rights Center inquired whether the ravine was lawfully registered to the neighbor. Representatives from the Commission on Property Acknowledgement told us that the Mtskheta district administration did not have information regarding the ravine in the registered territory. If they had known about it, they might not have registered part of the ravine to the Cholokavas.

“When we visited the Cholokavas, we did not see any ravine near their house. The ravine was already filled in and eliminated. Nobody argued then about the ravine but if they continue arguing, we will have to abolish our old decision,” said the Chairman of the commission Givi Bakradze.

We wonder: Did the district administration commit a crime when registering the ravine to the Cholokavas? Human Rights Center lawyer Nino Andriashvili explains that the district administration breached the law of Georgia and enacted an illegal administrative act based on which Cholokava registered the misappropriated territory of the ravine. Andriashvili points out that in similar cases the administrative institution is authorized to annul its decision.

Officials from the Mtskheta district administration think the territory cannot be registered to Kalandadze. Petitions with the signatures of 12 people were submitted to the administration. Those who signed these petitions claim to have common ownership of the ravine and are against registering the ravine on Kalandadze.

Lawyer Natia Berdzenishvili of the Mtskheta district administration said there is no legal basis to register the misappropriated ravine to Kalandadze. “Before 2007 nobody used the ravine and people say it was a common ravine which was used as a sewerage system. So, if the ravine is registered to any person, twelve other families will face problems and their rights will be breached,” said the lawyer.

Local officials added that Kalandadze could have registered the ravine if he had constructed a building on it before 2007. In accordance to the current law on “Acknowledgement of the Properties Located On the Plots of Physical or Legal Entities”, the ravine cannot be registered to him now. According to the law, the occupied land might be registered to a person who voluntarily owns a plot and it is not obligatory to have a building on it. In order to prove it, the party shall confirm the ownership and usage of the plot for many years before the law was adopted.

This particular case demonstrates the law’s arbitrary nature, as well as the fact that the law can mean different things for different people. Lawyer Nino Andriashvili agrees with this assessment. “The district administration made different conclusions on two equal cases. It registered the plot on one family but refused to do the same with another family. It is selective justice. We should investigate why similar facts happen and whether we face corruption aspects to it. It is a fact that there’s a ravine whose one part is owned by Cholokava and the second part is owned by Gabiskiria-Kalandadze’s family. In this case, the district administration breaches the equality principle and refuses Gabiskiria-Kalandadze to have their part registered while Cholokadze has already registered his part.”

News