Abolition of Evictions by Police Cannot Tackle Problems for Real Estate Owners
The Authorities seem to be disturbed by protest rallies of development project customers and they have decided to abolish evictions by police force. In this way the Government hopes to resolve problems of ten thousands of real estate owners. But the new bill has left all parties discontent, except for the Georgian Dream coalition.
Supporters of banks and businessmen assert an adoption of the bill will create problems to the business sector, while supporters of damaged real estate owners assure this bill is a particle of the huge problem and it will protract the process, not resolve it.
Despite this, the parliament’s majority considers the bill with great scrupulousness and plans to adopt it by the end of 2015. Namely, the bill abolishes the 3rd part of the 172nd article of the Georgian Criminal Code that, in combination with the subentry B of the 2nd entry of the 17th article of the Georgian law on Police, entitles the police to evict citizens from their own real estates.
According to the bill’s appendix, the bill was developed to amend essential legal errors that are characteristic to the police and extrajudicial practice in evicting citizens from real estate. Moreover, the eviction of citizens by police force contradicts the 2nd entry of the 20Th article of the Georgian state constitution, according to which, no one is authorized to enter a residential apartment and other privately owned facilities without a consent of owners provided there is not court decision or the law-provided indispensible necessity.
At this stage, those who have lost accommodations are interested in what will be their benefits from enacting this bill. Nana Japaridze, a representative of the committee for protecting the rights of victims of the bank and usurers systems, says if the eviction process is substantiated by the court decision, then no one is able to contradict the process, while if the enforcement order is issued by a notary, it should be appealed to the court. The situation will be heavier if the real estate has been set out for an auction, but the owners should not surrender and take consultations from lawyers to grasp even a petite opportunity to cancel auctions and the property alienation decision be announced annulled, Japaridze noted.
“If the enforcement order is issued by only a notary without a court decision, the document must be appealed to the court”,
Nana Japaridze said. Property owners should follow these recommendations if the parliament adopts the bill. However, the association of banks claims that the bill should oblige the court to discuss these issues for a month and the enforcement bureau to execute the decision immediately. In this case the bill will let property owners stay in their places for additional one month and ultimate outcomes will not change.
The bill cannot fully resolve the problem, Nana Japaridze said and added the government should ensure an allocation of low interest rate loans to this category of our citizens and employ them so as this category become solvent.
“This bill cannot foster the problem resolution. In Georgia 160 000 families may be evicted from their own accommodations. Therefore, this bill cannot alleviate their condition. This is a drop in ocean and despite this fact there are many objectors, even the business ombudsman contradicts the bill. The government should genuinely keep its promises. It would the most reasonable to issue low interest rate loans to these people and to employ them so as they pay off debts themselves”, Nana Japaridze said. As reported, even the business ombudsman’s office has expressed a negative position concerning the bill. The office has released a special statement saying administrative (extrajudicial) regulations for preventing real estate infringement or other sorts of encroachment is an efficient mechanism for protecting ownership rights and an abolition of these regulations will deteriorate the legal state of owners, namely, increase expenses of business bodies and protract the process for defending their rights.
Zurab Gvasalia, a head of the Association of Banks, noted an adoption of this bill will worsen the current situation. Representatives of the judicial system and the enforcement bureau noted at the parliament discussions they lack for human resources to discuss similar cases for a month and execute decisions immediately.
Having inquired reasons for developing this bill, we were said the court passes just decisions. No one has banned the process of appealing to the court. If someone thinks his/her rights are violated, he/she apply to the court anyway.
No one will immediately visit them and evict them from their accommodations. They receive notifications, warnings and certain terms. Within this term they are able to submit an appeal to the court. If the owner’s rights are genuinely violated, evictor will bear losses, because they should restore the plaintiff in the previous rights and remunerate eviction losses. Are you aware of the reasons why borrowers do not appeal to the court? Because they know they are wrong and the court will pass decisions against them. -Zurab Gvasalia noteod. He does not rule out that the process may be protracted for a long period and the business sector will fail to make proper calculations. Consequently, the most liquid property such as an apartment will lost its value for participating in business and civil relations.
Moreover, the bank sector risks grow. If commercial banks require a 30% co-participation of the apartment value for issuing a mortgage loan, after the bill adoption they may require 50%-60% co-participation ratio. Owners will be more damaged, because the court will pass decisions against them and they will have to cover the trial expenditures too. Hence, the process participant parties do not consider the bill adoption to be the problem solution and they urge the government to take more efficient decisions.