Formal Constitutional Review from the Georgian Legal Perspective

Abstract

Constitutional review stands as one of the most crucial mechanisms among state authorities’ activities, serving to uphold constitutional supremacy, protect human rights, and resolve competency disputes between state bodies. To fulfill
these essential functions, constitutional courts examine the conformity of normative acts with the constitution. This examination encompasses not only the assessment of substantive compatibility with fundamental law, but also verification of compliance with constitutionally established procedures for the adoption and implementation of normative acts. This authority, recognized
in legal doctrine as “formal constitutional review,” is indispensable to the Constitutional Court’s role as a comprehensive mechanism for protecting constitutional supremacy and fundamental rights. The 2017 comprehensive amendments to the Constitution of Georgia sparked a significant debate within Georgian academic circles regarding the Constitutional Court’s authority to conduct formal constitutional review. This scholarly discourse emerged from specific normative foundations: while the previous constitutional framework permitted expansion of the Constitutional Court’s powers through organic law, the reformed Constitution
now exhaustively defines these powers. However, this strictly normative interpretation raises several critical questions. First, should the Constitutional Court’s powers be subject to such a narrow normative interpretation? Second, how does the Constitutional Court perceive its own competence? Third, what legal foundations for formal constitutional review exist within constitutional legislation and the Court’s jurisprudence? This article aims to systematically address these fundamental questions.