Those Unlawfully Refused Crossing of the Georgian Border – Are Detained for Some Reason

Those Unlawfully Refused Crossing of the Georgian Border – Are Detained for Some Reason

🛑 Factual Circumstances:

I am conducting an administrative dispute (Case No. 3/——-26), within the scope of which my client, despite a certificate issued by the probation agency on February 24, 2026, was unable to cross the state border of Georgia — the administrative agency refused crossing without any written justification.

Following the refusal, we applied to the Patrol Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia and requested that they substantiate the decision made. Not only did the administrative agency fail to provide substantiation, but it also did not respond to us at all.

🛑 Legal Assessment:

In accordance with Article 2 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, an individual administrative-legal act must be justified — this is not a formality, but a direct expression of the presumption of legality and the accountability of an administrative agency. Pursuant to Article 53 of the same Code, an individual administrative-legal act must be sent to the interested party immediately upon issuance along with its justification.

Since the administrative agency failed to provide justification, this circumstance constitutes an independent ground for declaring the act void, affecting my client's freedom of movement guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 14) and international conventions.

✅ Procedural Developments:

In the claim, I requested: (1) an order for the issuance of an act — so that the administrative agency would be obliged to justify the reason for the refusal, and (2) the application of an interim measure — to protect the right to freedom of movement, given that until that time the agency had provided no justification whatsoever.

At the initial stage, the court did not admit the claim for proceedings on the grounds that my application had not been sent to the address of the proper defendant. We clarified the claim and cited Article 19, Part 1 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, according to which an unauthorized administrative body is obliged to forward an application to the authorized body on its own initiative. The claim was ultimately admitted for proceedings.

The court denied the motion regarding the application of an interim measure. Prior to appealing this ruling, the defendant — the Patrol Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia — submitted a written response to the court on June 10, 2026, in which the fields for factual and legal circumstances, argumentation, and legal position were left blank ! ! !. In other words, even after almost five months, the administrative agency had failed to present any justification for its decision.

We appealed the ruling denying the request for an interim measure by filing a private complaint, pointing out to the same judge the defendant's blank response and explaining that the responding party still had no substantiated position. The court forwarded the case to the Court of Appeals.

⚜️ Additional Circumstance — Coincidence in Timing

One week after we filed the claim against the Ministry of Internal Affairs, my client was detained in connection with an entirely different criminal case, formally unrelated to this administrative dispute. Currently, he is in custody.

I do not wish to conclude a link between two different cases without evidence. However, the coincidence in timing — the short period of time between filing the claim against the administrative agency and the arrest — objectively requires attention and a transparent, independent evaluation by the relevant authorities. On my part, all procedural mechanisms will be utilized to establish whether a connection exists between these two circumstances.

⚖️ Conclusion

This case clearly illustrates what the silence and unsubstantiated decision of an administrative agency mean in practice: a citizen is deprived of the right to know why their constitutional freedom is restricted, while the agency, despite its statutory duty, fails for months to fulfill its obligation to provide justification. Legislation explicitly stipulates that an unsubstantiated individual administrative-legal act constitutes a material violation and grounds for declaring it void. Judicial review in these cases is not a formality — it is the sole guarantee that the arbitrariness of an administrative agency remains restricted within the framework of the law.