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

Justice In the Hands of Poor Judges

May 5, 2009

Natia Imerlishvili,
Khatia Khorava

Court procedures lasted four years between two neighbors about the 7 sq. meters of balcony. Almost every instances of the court discussed this appeal and it even attracted the attention of human rights defenders because it contained the signs of discrimination on ethnic grounds: the applicant insulted the defender on ethnic grounds in front of the judge – however, the court did not protect the citizen form the third person.

Irina Khodoian - ethnic Kurd and citizen of Georgia is defendant at the court. Ethnic Georgian Meri Inasaridze is the applicant. The issue of their argument is 7 sq. meters of the balcony in front of the flat owned by Irina Khodoian.

Shrew Neighbors

The house is located in Jambuli Street N 3, Tbilisi. Several steps lead a person into a small balcony; one part of it is privatized by Khodoian and it is supposed to be linked with the only room where the family has lived so far. The entrance door to the flat of the applicant Meri Insaridze is made in the other part of the balcony. Meri Inasaridze thinks both families have right to use the balcony equally. However, during the recent 4 years the Khodoians have been trying to prove that the room is too small for their family; they used that room as a sitting-room and bedroom as well. After the neighbor locked the water-pipes and removed the sink in the common kitchen the family started to use their one room as a kitchen as well.

“There are four members in the family: my son; his wife; their one-year-old child and I,” Irina Khodoian stated at the court “during four years we could not place our furniture in the room and used the balcony for it. When Meri Inasaridze appealed to the court I had not privatized the balcony yet. However, I warned the judge several times that the privatization process was under-way and I could provide them with necessary documents soon. Despite that the court passed decision in favor of my rival and Meri Inasaridze was allowed to use the common balcony.”

It was 2007. Corresponding documents demonstrate that in parallel to the case-discussion the privatization process was still under-way. There are materials in the case that were mentioned to the judge several times by Irina Khodoian. The judge did not envisages the circumstances raised by the defendant side; did not wait for the end of the privatization and on June 12, 2008 the court passed the verdict and banned Irina Khodoian to prevent Inasaridze from using the part of the balcony.

Circulation in the Magic Circle

Several months after the court decision the privatization process ended and the abovementioned balcony was assigned to Irina Khodoian as private property (property agreement N1-10515) and it is confirmed by the extract from the Public Registry. According to the Article 183 of the Civil Code the ownership on the property can be estimated by the recordings at the Public Registry.

On June 24, 2008 Irina Khodoian appealed to the Appeal Court based on those recordings. She requested inviolability of her property though this process is still hindered.

Next, Meri Inasaridze appealed to the court. On August 22, 2008 Civil Case Collegium t the Tbilisi City Court started a new process. Inasaridze requested the court to annul the Notary Act based on which the balcony was property of Khodoian. Lawyer Nana Muradashvili represented Inasaridze at the court; Irina Khodoian was represented by Nino Lipartia, representative of the Human Rights Center. Judge Manana Meskhishvili is discussing the case.

Nino Andriashvili, lawyer for the Human Rights Center stated “the trial started through violation of the law. The case was launched based on the outdated articles. The point is that attorney of the applicant Meri Inasaridze prepared the suit based on the Articles 208 and 211 of the Civil Code (according to the Article 208, Part IV only isolated flat or part of the flat can be assigned into private possession; according to the Article 211 parts of the building that are necessary). The court accepted this suit although the Article 208 is completely changed and the Law on Property Ownership in the Residential House has come into force in the country. As for the Article 211 it is removed from the law and no other article has replaced it. I would like to underline that the amendments were introduced to the Civil Code on August 1, 2007. The court accepted the suit for discussion on August 22, 2008 that means one year after the amendments were made. It is enough time for even the worst judge to hear about those changes.”

The court breached the Article 178 of the Civil Procedural Code of Georgia by discussing the case based on the outdated articles. According to the article the suit should provide the legal basis of the claiming. In parallel to it the Article 3 of the Civil Code of Georgia was breached which states that the law is losing its power if the new law replaces it.

The lawyers of the Human Rights Center are particularly concerned about the discrimination of Irina Khodoian on ethnic grounds by the applicant Meri Inasaridze during the trial. Irina Khodoian is Kurd; the judge did not try to eradicate the discrimination during the proceedings. The court breached the right guaranteed by the Constitution based on which the state is entitled to protect the ethnic dignity of a person from the third person.

By similar action the court breached the Constitution of Georgia as well as Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that everybody has right to enjoy the right guaranteed by the law without any discrimination regardless his/her sex, race, skin-color, national belonging, etc.

Nino Lipartia, attorney for Irina Khodoian stated that the violation of principle of competitiveness was the biggest violation in this case. Unlike court hearings of criminal cases the discussion of civil cases totally relies on this principle. It means, the judge relies and completely studies the materials provided by both sides.

“My client Irina Khodoian was not allowed to invite witnesses to the court to reinforce her position though the applicant side was allowed to bring their witnesses to the trial. Georgian Legislation acknowledges the principle of competitiveness; more precisely it is guaranteed by the Article 4 of the Civil Code. The court breached this law.

The Article 6 of the European Convention of the Human Rights recognizes this right as well and it states that the court shall interrogate or demand to interrogate the witnesses of both sides in equal conditions; this international norm was also breached at the so called Inasaridze-Khodian trial.

Final trial was held on April 6. The judge evidently took into consideration the involvement of human rights defenders and journalists in the case. At the final trial Irina Khodoian was not insulted on ethnic grounds. The judge did not satisfy the suit and consequently, the judge assigned the 7 sq. meters of the balcony to Irina Khodoian. Finally, the court made decision in favor of the defendant side.

 Lia Toklikishvili, leader of the journalistic investigation.
This project is implemented by the Human Rights Center and the magazine Sitkva (Word) with the support of the Eurasian Partnership
Foundation

News