The Constitutional Court partially satisfied the lawsuits of former State Inspector Londa Toloraia and the Public Defender of Georgia against the Parliament.

“According to the position of the Parliament of Georgia, the legitimate goal of the implemented changes in relation to the State Inspector’s Service was to improve the effective institutional arrangement of the State Inspector’s Service, to control the legal processing of personal data during implementation of the investigative action and to avoid conflict of interest.

According to the respondent’s argumentation, since the State Inspector’s Service and the position of the State Inspector did not constitute an institution mentioned in the Constitution of Georgia and since the latter was an office created on the basis of the law, the Parliament had a broad discretion to create an independent body or bodies implementing similar content and functions.

Any interference with the right protected by Article 25 of the Constitution, which is related to the constitutional institutions and positions, should be assessed particularly strictly.

In each specific case, the court must assess whether the legislative body acted in accordance with the constitutional requirements during the implementation of the reform and whether it took measures to protect the rights of the officials or reduce damage.

The case concerned the dismissal of an official with a guaranteed term of office due to the abolition of the agency itself, which implied a conflict of different values.

The dismissed State Inspector was not offered to be appointed to one of the positions of the head of 2 new bodies, or automatic appointment to one of them, or the payment of fair compensation due to the premature termination of her authority, which would be an important mechanism in terms of reducing the intensity of interference with the right and minimizing the damage, as long as the termination of authority was not related to any violations or non-compliance with service duties.

The Constitutional Court held that the unconditional dismissal of the State Inspector and her deputies elected with a guaranteed term of office, without offering adequate, equivalent position or fair compensation, could not meet the constitutional standards of protection of the right to unhindered performance of public service activities”, - reads the statement of the Constitutional Court.