Refusal of Georgian citizenship overturned by court
a story about how the Supreme Court effectively decided to grant Georgian citizenship
JUST case: court stories
In our work, there are cases that at first glance seem almost unsolvable due to their specifics and the complexity of legal mechanisms. Today we want to share just such a story — about how we helped our clients, Maria and Giorgi, obtain Georgian citizenship despite an initial refusal and seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
1. Description of the situation
Our clients, Maria (born in Tbilisi in the 1970s) and her minor son Giorgi (born in Russia in the 2000s), were citizens only of the Russian Federation. They contacted us with a request for assistance in obtaining Georgian citizenship under the exceptional procedure. Despite the fact that Maria successfully passed the exam (scoring 10 points on the state language, the history of Georgia, and the basics of law), the Citizenship Commission at the LEPL Public Service Development Agency, during the interview, decided not to recommend granting them citizenship. This happened in 2022.
The Commission noted that Maria had received her education and worked in Russia, where she married; her husband and children are citizens of the Russian Federation. Giorgi was born and lives in Russia, where he receives secondary education. The refusal was motivated by the fact that the clients did not meet the conditions of Article 17 of the Organic Law of Georgia "On Georgian Citizenship," as their ties to Georgia (having relatives and real estate) were not considered sufficient grounds for granting citizenship under the exceptional procedure.
The Commission noted that Maria had received her education and worked in Russia, where she married; her husband and children are citizens of the Russian Federation. Giorgi was born and lives in Russia, where he receives secondary education. The refusal was motivated by the fact that the clients did not meet the conditions of Article 17 of the Organic Law of Georgia "On Georgian Citizenship," as their ties to Georgia (having relatives and real estate) were not considered sufficient grounds for granting citizenship under the exceptional procedure.
2. The violated right
The main problem was that the decision to grant citizenship in Georgia is an exceptional and discretionary right of the President, similar to a pardon. This means that the President’s decision to grant or refuse citizenship cannot be directly appealed in court. However, in making such a decision, the President takes into account the conclusion of the Citizenship Commission. The legislation governing the work of the Commission stipulates that its decisions must be consistent and similar in comparable situations. This circumstance gave us the opportunity to protect our clients' rights.
The clients demanded that the conclusions of the LEPL Public Service Development Agency be declared invalid, and that the Agency be obliged to reconsider the matter and issue positive conclusions on granting Georgian citizenship under the exceptional procedure.
The clients demanded that the conclusions of the LEPL Public Service Development Agency be declared invalid, and that the Agency be obliged to reconsider the matter and issue positive conclusions on granting Georgian citizenship under the exceptional procedure.
3. Our actions: defense strategy
We decided to appeal the conclusions of the Citizenship Commission. Our court application was based on the fact that in an absolutely similar situation — analogous to that of our clients — the Commission had previously made a different decision, namely, it had recommended granting citizenship to applicants. We also provided information and documentation confirming ties to Georgia.
We also pointed out the absence of any intent to conceal information and that the lower courts had incorrectly assessed the role of the Agency and the circumstances that could have led to a different decision.
Case progress:
The Supreme Court noted that the Agency’s conclusions were not substantiated and did not contain information excluding the applicants' compliance with the conditions of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship. The Court emphasized that Maria had successfully passed the examinations, and that the information from the Intelligence Service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the State Security Service contained no negative information about the applicants. The Court also took into account that Maria was born in Georgia, has relatives and real estate here, and that her emigration was caused by difficult socio-economic circumstances.
We also pointed out the absence of any intent to conceal information and that the lower courts had incorrectly assessed the role of the Agency and the circumstances that could have led to a different decision.
Case progress:
- First instance: December 2022 — filing of the claim in the Administrative Cases Panel of the Tbilisi City Court against the LEPL Public Service Development Agency. In April 2023 — Tbilisi City Court refused to satisfy their claim.
- Appeal: We appealed this decision, but the Administrative Cases Chamber of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, by its ruling of April 2024, upheld the decision of the first instance.
- Cassation (Supreme Court): We continued the fight and filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Georgia. In October 2024, the Supreme Court accepted our cassation appeal for consideration. In May 2025, the Supreme Court of Georgia (Administrative Chamber) issued a final decision, granting the cassation appeal of Maria and Giorgi. The Court overturned the ruling of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal and adopted a new decision, satisfying the applicants' claim. The Court obliged the LEPL Public Service Development Agency to issue positive conclusions on granting citizenship to Maria and Giorgi under the exceptional procedure.
The Supreme Court noted that the Agency’s conclusions were not substantiated and did not contain information excluding the applicants' compliance with the conditions of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship. The Court emphasized that Maria had successfully passed the examinations, and that the information from the Intelligence Service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the State Security Service contained no negative information about the applicants. The Court also took into account that Maria was born in Georgia, has relatives and real estate here, and that her emigration was caused by difficult socio-economic circumstances.
4. Result
The claims of our clients were fully satisfied. The Supreme Court of Georgia made a final decision to grant Georgian citizenship to Maria and Giorgi and obliged the LEPL Public Service Development Agency to issue positive conclusions. This became an unprecedented case in which a judicial authority effectively obliged the granting of citizenship, bypassing the discretionary right of the executive branch.
In addition, the LEPL Public Service Development Agency was obliged to reimburse Maria and Giorgi the state fee in the amount of 1,100 GEL, which they had paid in the city, appeal, and cassation courts.
In addition, the LEPL Public Service Development Agency was obliged to reimburse Maria and Giorgi the state fee in the amount of 1,100 GEL, which they had paid in the city, appeal, and cassation courts.
Additional information:
- Lawyer for the case: Giorgi Zhuzhunashvili
- Period of proceedings: 2022−2025
- Result: Granting of Georgian citizenship by decision of the Supreme Court
- Court that made the decision: Supreme Court of Georgia (Administrative Chamber)
Was it helpful? Share your opinion
Do you have a task or a question?
MARIA GUSEINOVA
Leading Manager of Commercial Department
Leading Manager of Commercial Department