The Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) has submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Constitutional Court of Georgia regarding a constitutional lawsuit filed by members of Parliament seeking the banning of several opposition political parties.
The lawsuit calls for the prohibition of the following parties and political groupings: “Unity – National Movement,” “Coalition for Change – Gvaramia, Melia, Girchi, Droa,” and “Strong Georgia – Lelo, For People, For Freedom.”
GYLA announced the submission of its legal opinion via social media, emphasizing the importance of the broader political environment in which the case is being considered.
The organization, the amicus curiae brief analyzes international legal standards and Georgia’s national legislation concerning the most extreme form of restriction on freedom of association—the banning of political parties. GYLA stresses that courts must consider not only the existence of an urgent public need but also the historical and political context in which such measures are proposed.
Citing the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), GYLA notes that the review of party bans is taking place in a particularly challenging political environment. This context, the organization argues, is marked by the concentration of power in the hands of a single ruling party, the gradual erosion of democratic pluralism, the systematic narrowing of political opposition and civic space, and the instrumentalization of legal mechanisms for narrow partisan interests.
The association also addresses the concept of “defensible democracy,” which is repeatedly referenced by the plaintiffs in the constitutional complaint. According to GYLA, defensible democracy refers to a democratic system’s ability to adopt preventive measures to protect itself from forces seeking to undermine democracy from within. However, the organization emphasizes that this concept is valid only when the political system itself remains democratic in nature.
“If a regime loses its democratic character and uses the concept of defensible democracy against political opponents, this theoretical framework loses its legitimacy and turns into a legal instrument of politically motivated repression,” GYLA states.
The organization further recalls the ECtHR’s position that banning a political party constitutes the most severe restriction on freedom of association, and is permissible only as a last resort, in exceptional circumstances. Such a measure, GYLA argues, may only be justified by organized and deliberate actions aimed at dismantling the democratic order.
The association says political parties cannot be held collectively responsible solely for individual statements or actions of certain members. Nor, it adds, can a party be banned simply because its ideas are unpopular or offensive to parts of society.
