The Constitutional Court of Georgia has partially granted a motion by the "Lelo – Strong Georgia" coalition to examine evidence presented in a lawsuit filed by the ruling "Georgian Dream" party, which seeks to ban five opposition political forces. Levan Samushia, a representative for the coalition, requested an examination of the materials cited by the plaintiff—a demand joined by other defendants. Specifically, Berdia Sichinava, representing the "Gakharia for Georgia" party, reiterated that the case files fail to clarify which specific findings from the parliamentary commission led by Tea Tsulukiani pertain to his political party.

At the same time, the plenary session of the court ruled that not all internet links listed in the constitutional lawsuit need to be displayed during the hearings. The court also declined to separately examine well-known, generally accepted facts or court rulings that have already entered into legal force.

"The request to display every single internet link cited in the constitutional lawsuit during the proceedings is denied. Furthermore, the court will not examine—during the hearings on the merits of the case—facts that are common knowledge (as defined under Article 31 of the Constitutional Court’s Rules of Procedure), nor will it examine judicial acts that have already entered into legal force.

Throughout the proceedings, the court will assess the relevance of specific pieces of evidence cited in the lawsuit if they are challenged—whether upon a reasoned motion from a party or on the court’s own initiative," the judge stated.

He clarified that the parties are not required to file a separate motion for every individual piece of evidence; such a need would only arise if the relevance of a particular item to the case becomes a matter of dispute.

"No. Only in the event that their relevance becomes a subject of dispute." "In other words, the web links attached to the lawsuit, as well as the court rulings and other materials cited in the footnotes, have already been published, and the parties are aware of them. Furthermore, both during the Q&A phase and at subsequent stages, the parties certainly retain the opportunity to address these materials—it would be strange for anyone to believe they are barred from asking questions about a piece of evidence or commenting on it; a party has every right to request information that interests them. As for examining or presenting, here in court, decisions that have already entered into legal force—there is practically no point in doing so," the judge explained.

The hearing of the lawsuit filed by "Georgian Dream" began on October 21. To date, the court has held eight sessions.

The ruling party is seeking to have the activities of the "United National Movement," "Coalition for Change," "Strong Georgia – Lelo," "Federalists," and "Gakharia for Georgia" declared unconstitutional, and to have these entities banned.