Resignation of a Member of Parliament – The Disputed Essence of the 5th Paragraph of the 39th Article of the Constitution of Georgia and a Practice Leading to its Unconstitutional Interpretation

Abstract

The Constitution of Georgia stipulates that the mandate of a member of the Parliament will be terminated before the expiration of the term if he/she submits a personal application for terminating his/her powers to Parliament. Based on this norm, in December 2020, 54 opposition MPs applied to the Parliament with the request to terminate their parliamentary powers. They initiated "boycotting" the Parliament of the tenth convocation and tried to express their political protest by refusing the authority of a member of the Parliament. In response to this, the Parliament of Georgia did not satisfy the request of 51 members of the Parliament to terminate their powers before the expiration of the term. This decision of the parliamentary majority is based on a new interpretation of the constitutional norm, which has become the subject of controversy.
 
 This article discusses the controversial content of Article 39, Clause 5 of the Constitution of Georgia and presents an analysis of its interpretation. Based on the methods of interpretation of the norm, the shortcomings of the interpretation proposed by the Parliament have been checked and the corresponding shortcomings have been identified. In the context of the decision made by the Parliament, a discussion is presented on the relationship between the interpretation and construction of the constitutional norm. In addition, the article discusses the relationship between the termination of the powers of the member of the parliament and the free mandate of the decision-making deputies