The Court Decision as "Law"

In this article, I will attempt to explain why a court decision (which, of course, has entered into legal force and/or is subject to immediate enforcement) can be considered a "new law / court's law" that establishes its mandatory execution, and why the adopted decision is equated to a "law" adopted by the parliament;

As a means of interpreting anything, the interpretation of this issue itself must, of course, start with the Constitution of Georgia. Specifically, according to the first paragraph of Article 62 of the Constitution: "A court decision is delivered in the name of Georgia. Court acts are mandatory for execution. Failure to execute a court decision or hindering its execution is punishable by law." The most important part of this article is that "Court acts are mandatory for execution." Court acts, of course, imply: a decision, a ruling, and an order (the latter is used only during leasing, but that is a separate issue; true, it is submitted to the court in the form of a lawsuit, but because the court does not examine it as during ordinary proceedings, the legislator called it an order);

To put it simply, the "book of the people's agreement" indicates that the society, which agreed to transfer its natural rights to the state, also agreed that any act of the judicial branch is "mandatory" for execution; meaning, the mandatory nature of execution is predetermined;

The Organic Law of Georgia "On Normative Acts" does not recognize a court decision (we are speaking here not of the Constitutional Court, but of courts included in the system of common courts) as a law and does not grant it the significance of a law. However, there is an interesting provision in Article 317 of the Civil Code. Specifically, Article 317 recognizes several grounds for the emergence of an obligation (i.e., for one party to acquire the right to demand something from another party to perform or refrain from performing). For an obligation to arise, it is necessary to have:
a) A contract between the participants (be it in written or oral form);
b) Infliction of damage / a tort (i.e., causing me damage without being in a contractual relationship with me. A classic example is a car accident: if my car is damaged, even though I am not in a contractual relationship, I acquire the right to make a claim against the person who caused the damage);
c) Unjust enrichment (this indicates that one person gets enriched at the expense of another person without being in a contractual relationship. For example, if I mistakenly transferred money to another person, I have the right to demand this money back from them);
d) From other grounds provided by law (this provision is probably the one that requires a broad interpretation);

The list provided by the law is inexhaustive; specifically, this can be encountered not only in the Civil Code but in other laws as well, because overall it is impossible for any single law to define or limit the complete grounds for the emergence of an obligation. Accordingly, the law may also provide for other grounds for the emergence of an obligation. However, unfortunately, I have not seen discussions about "the court decision as a new law" in Georgian court decisions and/or academic works;

First of all, in order to compare these two things: a court decision and a law, I must indicate what the characteristic feature/features of a law are, what characterizes a law (i.e., what distinguishing properties we have), and what should be considered a law (I will not delve into legal theories; I will choose simplicity):
a) The law must be adopted by an authorized body (if we are talking about a law, the parliament should be considered the authorized body, but we can also point out: a minister's order as a normative act, etc. The authorized body, of course, must be authorized for this by the Constitution and the law. Article 36 of the Constitution of Georgia: "The Parliament of Georgia is the supreme representative body of the country, which exercises legislative power." Also, there are three stages of adoption, etc.);
b) The law must be foreseeable, accurately and clearly formulated (in short, the law must be of high quality. The law should not be characterized by abstraction; it should be as understandable as possible and directed towards a specific permission or prohibition of something. For example: if a person is accused of distributing pornography, it must be precisely defined what pornography is and what erotica is. I bring up this example because even today there is an ongoing constitutional dispute reviewing the constitutionality of the article on the production of pornography, as its definition cannot be found, and the constitutional plaintiff claims he was engaged in erotica);
c) Everyone must be equal before the law, and its execution must be mandatory (everyone obeys the law equally and universally, both the citizen and the ruling power; i.e., it must be mandatory for everyone to execute, its execution must be mandatory. If mandatory nature and/or a sanction for its non-execution do not exist, this law is merely a recommendation);
d) The law must be reasonable (i.e., the sphere of its adoption and/or operation must exist for this law to operate. For example: if Georgia as a state transitioned to a market economy, the operation of the Civil Code of the Soviet Union could not continue because the Civil Code of Soviet Georgia did not recognize the right to property);

Besides these features, many other features could possibly be added, but these four main features are essential and necessary to explain the essence of the law. What characterizes a court decision, or what range of action does it have according to the same principles:
a) If in the first case "the law must be adopted by an authorized body" and the hallmark of a law is an authorized body, in the case of a court decision, who is the authorized body to make the decision? The answer is given by the Constitution, which states that "The cancellation, modification, or suspension of a court decision can only be carried out by a court under the procedure defined by law." That is, both the adoption of a court decision and its cancellation can only be done solely by the court; and its authority to make such a decision and be considered an authorized body is determined not only by the law but also by the Constitution of Georgia. Also, Article 1.2 of the Organic Law of Georgia "On Common Courts" indicates that "Justice is one of the forms of exercising judicial power and is carried out by common courts through civil, administrative, and criminal proceedings";
b) If in the case of a law "the law must be foreseeable, accurately and clearly formulated," the same can be said about a court decision. That is, the execution of a court decision must be possible, because if the court does not issue a foreseeably executable decision, it cannot be precise—for example, to whom what should be awarded, or which item, or which person should be found guilty in the presented charge or acquitted. Accordingly, precise formulation means what the party demanded and what they received through the decision;
c) If in the case of a law "everyone must be equal before the law, and its execution must be mandatory," in the case of a court decision it must be said that "everyone must be equal before the court, and its execution must be mandatory." We also have this present during a court decision, because: Article 62.5 of the Constitution of Georgia explicitly states that "Legal proceedings are carried out on the basis of equality and adversariality of the parties," i.e., equality is guaranteed by the Constitution. Not to mention how this is later detailed in various laws, for example, the Civil Procedure Code where the principle of dispositivity is introduced, and/or the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in the Criminal Procedure Code. As for the mandatory nature of a court decision, its guarantee is ensured by the same Constitution according to Article 62.1: "Failure to execute a court decision or hindering its execution is punishable by law." That is, the Constitution guarantees that the execution of a court decision is an act with mandatory force, sharing the same character as "failure to execute the law." The same relationship is found according to Article 4.1 of the Organic Law "On Common Courts": "A court act, as well as a court's demand and directive to exercise its authority, are mandatory for all physical and legal persons, state and municipal bodies throughout the entire territory of Georgia." Here we can also add that for the compulsory execution of a court decision, the state creates/created a separate law, the "Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings," and also created the LEPL National Bureau of Enforcement, which compulsorily executes the decision made by the court;
d) If in the case of a law "the law must be reasonable," what should a court decision be like? To answer this, it is necessary to cite several articles from different laws. Criminal Procedure Code: "Standard beyond a reasonable doubt – the totality of evidence necessary for the court to render a guilty verdict, which would convince an objective person of the person's culpability." In the Civil Procedure Code, Article 248: "The court has no right to award a party by its decision what they have not requested, or more than what they requested." That is, the party must receive what they requested or be refused; they cannot demand anything else. Also, the decision must be specific and not abstract. For example: the decision cannot indicate "and others," "they," "to them," "instruct them." Additionally, the descriptive part of the decision must briefly state the plaintiff's claim, the defendant's position regarding the plaintiff's claim, the circumstances established by the court, the evidence on which the court's conclusions are based, and the reasoning by which the court rejects certain evidence;

Another provision is interesting, which concerns the interpretation of the law. For example, a Grand Chamber can be convened in the Supreme Court, whose legal assessment (interpretation) of a norm of the law is mandatory for courts of all instances (Article 17.5 of the Organic Law "On Common Courts": "The legal assessment (interpretation of a norm) by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court is mandatory for common courts of all instances"). This norm is not only directed at the court, but by means of interpreting the law through a court decision, it makes this interpretation mandatory outside the court as well. In other words: the court decision becomes mandatory for the state, for citizens, because it is already known how the court views this law, and the citizen knows in advance what is implied in this law;

Contrary to this, the best argument that a court decision is not a "new law" is that "a law applies to everyone," whereas "a court decision applies to a person or a circle of persons"—therefore, it does not have the same force. Moreover, "a law is a rule of multiple applications," whereas "a court decision is a one-time rule applied to a specific case";

It is precisely a reflection of this that the Civil Code of some countries indicates not only the law but also "a court decision" as a separate ground for the emergence of an obligation. This means that a court decision adopted by a court is, from the moment of its adoption as a result of the judicial process, a "law," except that, unlike the parliament, it is adopted by a judge. This issue is interesting because a decision is not merely a "decision"; every time it can be considered a "law adopted by the court";

As for examples of how a court decision can become a law (i.e., an independent means for the emergence of an obligation), it suffices to say that if a person who was illegally detained and/or accused is acquitted (i.e., acquitted by a court decision), then by this decision they are granted the right to demand compensation for damages from the state. The claim for compensation for damages is indeed defined by law, but if the judge did not acquit the person by their decision, the claim does not arise. That is, the basis for the emergence of the obligation is not the law, but the judge's decision (Article 1005.3 of the Civil Code: "Damage caused to a rehabilitated person as a result of unlawful conviction, unlawful criminal prosecution, unlawful application of detention as a measure of restraint, administrative detention, disciplinary detention, or incorrect imposition of an administrative penalty in the form of corrective labor, shall be compensated by the state, regardless of the fault of the officials of the investigation, prosecution bodies, and the court. In case of intent or gross negligence, these persons shall be jointly and severally liable along with the state";

A court decision is not merely a "piece of paper." It might be "one-time," but it is also a law; and as in the case of a law, it must first and foremost be "just" and then "legal";