The Public Defender's Office of Georgia examined applications of 5 individuals employed at the former Research Center of the Parliament of Georgia, who explained that the director of the center did not give them, unlike other employees, a monetary reward due to their different views. The applicants also indicated that they were harassed by the director of the center.

In particular, the applicants signed a statement of persons employed in the public sector, which expressed support for the European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations enshrined in Article 78 of the Constitution of Georgia and condemned the violent repression of peaceful protests of Georgian citizens. The applicants spoke about this issue and the problems existing in the workplace in the media as well.

The respondent denied the facts of discriminatory treatment and noted that the use of the incentive mechanism constitutes discretionary power, and the reference to the violation of non-existent rights by employees was devoid of both reasonableness and legal basis.

The Public Defender's Office assessed, based on national and international standards, whether the director of the center, when making a decision on the issue of granting a monetary reward, acted in compliance with fundamental principles such as legality, equality, non-discrimination and lawful exercise of discretionary powers.

In the present case, the respondent failed to present sufficient arguments to refute the assumption raised by the applicants, and the case materials showed that other employees were granted a monetary reward, while no legally weighty arguments were named to justify its non-reception by the applicants.

The Public Defender emphasized that since the center provided financial incentives to employees who, in the director’s opinion, performed their functions in an exemplary manner, the same approach should have been extended to all employees who performed the work to the stated standard.

As for the harassment of the applicants, due to the lack of evidence, the Public Defender was unable to establish the fact of harassment against the applicants, since the behaviors revealed in this process were not of such severity and systematicity to create a legal basis for establishing harassment.