The "Philosophical" Purpose of the Procedural Code

During the practice of law, I always try to see the logic that governs any action, whether it is my action, the defendant's, or the prosecution's. This is probably an echo of a past period I went through. However, in some cases, this so-called "philosophy" in its worst sense (that is, in reality, philosophers do not exist for me as such; philosophy is merely a conditional concept, and in truth, no one knows anything completely) is something I want to help me look behind the law and answer one of the main questions (at least for me): why does this or that law exist?

Recently, the activation of this question within me was triggered by a case where I faced a severe dilemma: from the standpoint of legality, I could not file the lawsuit, but from the standpoint of justice, I should have had the right to do so. The short history of the story is as follows: A person residing in Kazakhstan was contacted by a certain Kakha from Georgia, who offered to deliver a car from Georgia to Kazakhstan. He showed the car, and the parties agreed on amount X. The conditional Kakha demanded that the citizen of Kazakhstan pay 50% of the amount in advance, but the money was to be sent to a person specified by Kakha, who turned out to be a certain Nana. The citizen of Kazakhstan sent the money to Nana, and, as expected, both Kakha and Nana disappeared. However, the citizen of Kazakhstan knows neither of their passport details, addresses, nor personal ID numbers. Their phones are switched off, and he only has the receipt of the money transfer. And I am the one who has to handle this case;

Here begins the main issue. The Civil Procedure Code, based on which I must conduct the case, sets two preconditions for admitting a lawsuit into proceedings. The first is overcoming the formal barrier, and the second is overcoming the substantive barrier by the plaintiff.
The formal aspect: The formal side requires that I indicate the defendant's personal ID number, address, and contact details (besides this, there is email, etc., but I cannot even get to that since I cannot overcome the formal hurdle).

That is, as a lawyer, I do not have the information needed to identify the defendant, while the Civil Procedure Code formally and imperatively demands this. At the same time, the National Bank, as well as all banks and microfinance organizations, require from me the data of the person who cashed the money in Georgia, along with a document confirming their authorization (Power of Attorney), in order for me to receive this information. So, it is a vicious circle: since I do not even know which bank or microfinance institution the money was cashed in, I cannot request the securing of evidence; and if I apply to the court, they will not admit the case into proceedings because they will demand the data necessary for identification; yet, without the court, I cannot obtain this information. Accordingly, the most crucial and primary questions arose in my mind here:
Why does the Civil Procedure Code exist?
What is its purpose?
And can the Procedural Code, by its own requirements, hinder me from exercising my right?

I ask this not as someone who knows the law to some extent, but because I am interested in the goal of the creator of this law—i.e., the parliament. Briefly put, why did 150 people agree that this is how everyone in Georgia must act if they want to litigate, and not as the citizen pleases. The existence of a court makes sense only if access to it is guaranteed for any person; moreover, the purpose of the law is to make this access effective and not merely formal. Furthermore, it is logical that a dispute in court is initiated by the one who is subsequently called the plaintiff—that is, the person whose right has possibly been violated. In the early days, I genuinely thought the provision in the Civil Procedure Code stating that "every person is guaranteed the judicial protection of their rights. The court shall commence the hearing of a case upon the application of a person appealing to it to protect their rights or legally protected interests" was merely declarative. I thought it was declarative because I considered it so simple to understand that I couldn't even grasp where someone would use it and/or why this provision should exist at all. But when I had a specific case and a specific obstacle, I remembered this principle—a principle that guarantees me that having a court dispute reviewed is my right in all circumstances, and the court is the means to realize this right. At the same time, this article has an exceptional rule, namely: "the court may refuse to accept an application and hear a case only on the grounds and in the manner established by this Code";

So, on the one hand, my right as a plaintiff against Nana and Kakha is violated: until I "get" their personal ID numbers, I cannot file the lawsuit. On the other hand, "getting" them through legal means is impossible without the court (now, whether he can sue the money transfer company in Kazakhstan is a separate issue). Therefore, on the one hand, if I submit such a lawsuit to the court in full compliance with the law, it will refuse to accept the lawsuit into proceedings. On the other hand, if I cannot legally obtain this information, it will be unjust if the court does not accept the lawsuit into proceedings (at least to me).;

That is why I wondered how I could explain the purpose of this law in such a way that the court could see justice and not just legality. First of all, I must note that when I submitted this lawsuit, I spent 4 hours not in front of the judge, but with the chancellery staff to get this lawsuit registered. However, it was to no avail, because after the final phone call, they told me: "We will not register this" (it was roughly in this style: "First get the personal ID number and address, boy, and then bother us"). The principle I am trying to explain is not a new dilemma in law as a whole, but it is difficult because it forces you to think unconventionally. First of all, justice or the assurance of a judicial hearing offered by the state cannot exist in such a way that you cannot even make the appeal. Therefore, it is impossible that no solution exists where there is a desire or will to find one. I agreed with myself on the following:

What restriction the legislator has imposed is one issue, and what restriction the court imposes according to its own discretion is another. The court acts solely and exclusively on the basis of the provision set by the legislator. For the person, i.e., the plaintiff, applying to the court to restore a violated right, the essence of the right, such as appealing to the court, is not absolute. However, it is such a significant right that the necessity of issuing a ruling refusing to accept the lawsuit must be so substantiated that it leaves no room for any other interpretation. The court restricts access to the court not because it thinks it should, but so that the plaintiff protects themselves correctly.

To explain the third condition in simpler terms: "The purpose of the Civil Procedure Code is to show me the best way to exercise my right, and not to act as an obstacle without which I cannot apply to the court. Generally, those 150 people agreed on this: let's give those who want to litigate a more or less proper law so that they can later use their rights better. And not the other way around—I do not think those 150 people wanted that if I fail to meet some condition, the court has the right to refuse the protection of my right."

Accordingly, the presence of a personal ID number and address in the lawsuit or response is necessary not because the court cannot deliberate without it, but in order to identify the person and so that the court decision does not turn into a useless piece of paper. But where the court acts legally, it will also act unjustly, because the purpose of the law must be read from its content, not from its literal understanding.

The Constitutional Court has many excellent decisions, but one of the standout provisions (which I also thought was a blanket rule until I used it myself) is the following: "The main thing is that the restriction must not be absolute, blanket, and disproportionate; it must not cause such an essential restriction of the party's rights that practically leads to the impossibility of the party exercising its function or deprives the declared right of its meaning" (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of 27/01/2017 in case N1/1/650,699; N. Khurtsidze and D. Lomidze vs. the Parliament of Georgia). If we continue this reasoning, I should have arrived at the idea (if the lawsuit was not accepted into proceedings) that: "The restriction cited by the court concerns a legislative norm, the constitutionality of which was raised by the plaintiff; accordingly, in our case, the restriction is initiated by the court and not by the legislative norm, and the court interprets the norm in such a way that the party's right could be violated to an extent that its restoration becomes impossible."

The same idea is conveyed by the Supreme Court when it indicates that: "The purpose of legal proceedings is oriented towards the effective and real protection of a violated right, which points to the exhaustive resolution of the issue by the national court and not to proceedings of a formal nature that will not result in the elimination of the dispute (cf. Supreme Court of Georgia Ruling No. as-302-285-2017, 16.06.2017)." Accordingly, in my case, refusing not only the hearing but even accepting it before the hearing would be depriving the plaintiff of their right.

However, there is also a second view of the court when it indicates that: "The starting point for accepting a lawsuit is the formal correctness of the lawsuit, which is exhaustively presented by the plaintiff in the present case. Accordingly, even in the event that the plaintiff has not observed these preconditions, it is not a right but an obligation of the court to ensure the adoption of a ruling that not only does not confuse the plaintiff but ensures the realization of the plaintiff's right to appeal to the court" (Case No. 2b/835-16). Also: "By accepting into proceedings and hearing a vague, unspecified claim, the execution of the final decision on the case will be jeopardized in the event of its satisfaction. It is in the plaintiff's own interest to present a correct lawsuit. After several attempts, the 1st instance court refused to accept the kind of lawsuit where I had not indicated either the address or the personal ID number of the defendant (I only knew the name and surname, and I had also filed 9 motions for the court to help me obtain this), which I basically expected. But the appeal, which was later satisfied, was built on the following idea: 

To the question: Why does the Civil Procedure Code exist? My answer was that it exists for the better realization of my right, and not to cause the un-enforceability of the right.
To the question: What is its purpose? My answer was that its purpose is to help me properly manage the case with its assistance; i.e., so that the rules of the game are equal for both parties.
To the question: Can the Procedural Code, by its own requirements, hinder me from exercising my right? My answer was that if I, as a party, present all the evidence that I could not obtain this and cannot obtain it without the court, then the court does not just have the right, but the obligation to help me so that I can realize my right. And if we approach the issue philosophically, then we must also say: the plaintiff does not exist for the law, but rather the law exists for the plaintiff. And it is precisely the obligation of the law, whose executor is the judge, to help me so that I am not deprived of the right to a hearing;

I must note that in the case I am talking about, there was also another problem, specifically, the court considered that the case did not fall under the jurisdiction of Georgia, and consequently one specific ruling was canceled because of this. Nevertheless, the appellate court avoided answering me directly through this specific line of reasoning. But the more important thing is that: today there is a case in court where I know neither the defendant's personal ID number nor address, and the court has to request information from about 40 organizations, as well as from up to 5 public services, etc., in order for me to find my defendants, Kakha and Nana. But if I had been guided by mere legality, I would have led the case to injustice. Accordingly, I can easily answer the main question:
What is the purpose of the Civil Procedure Code?! To ensure justice and not just legality. And yes, where the law seems illegal/unjust to you, you might need a so-called "philosophical approach" in its worst sense (and yes, without cognitive dissonance, what kind of humans are we, including lawyers);