Abstract:

The concept of different and concurrent thoughts is a democratic mechanism that reflects the ideas of minorities in the process of constitutional justice. It is thanks to him that it becomes possible to evaluate the disputed issue in a variety of ways and to create the possibility of a different arrangement in the future perspective, which has a significant impact on the finality and irreplaceability of the results established by the decisions of the Constitutional Court.

Based on the above, the paper discusses the pros and cons of the doctrine of dissenting and concurring opinions, scientific visions and legal regulations in order to assess,  whether the judges of the Constitutional Court of Georgia have sufficient guarantees for the formation of individual opinions. The paper is focused on presenting the meaning and challenges of different and concurring thoughts that arise in practice.

Ultimately, the article outlines the impact these views can have on future definitions of constitutional provisions, legislative reforms, and public discourse. Drawing on the analysis of practice, an assessment has also been made of how the realization of this opportunity by the judges of the Constitutional Court of Georgia affects decision outcomes, the Court’s functioning, and inter-judicial collaboration.

Keywords:

Constitutional justice, Independence of judges, Judicial precedents

Full PDF:

PDF