News
Constitutional Court of Georgia rules not to uphold Constitutional Claim №1609
On April 30, 2026 the Second Board of the Constitutional Court of Georgia ruled not to uphold the Constitutional Claim №1609 (“Budu Shekiladze v. the Parliament of Georgia”).
In accordance with the disputed norm, the grounds for the origination of entitlement to a pension shall be the attainment of the retirement age of 65. However, women shall be entitled to a pension from the age of 60.
According to the claimant, in the context of the entitlement to a pension, women and men are essentially equal subjects. In particular, both employed women and men contribute equally to the state budget, through which the pension fund is formed. Moreover, according to statistical data, the number of women exceeds the number of men both in terms of birth rates and life expectancy. Accordingly, setting the retirement age for men five years higher constitutes differential treatment on the ground of sex, which lacks reasonable and objective justification and therefore violates the right to equality.
According to the respondent, the state enjoys broad discretion in the field of social and economic policy. The respondent argued that women often perform unpaid work in the household and due to pregnancy, childbirth, and childcare, experience interruptions in their careers, which reduces their pension savings. At the same time, the earlier retirement age is conditioned due to the salary gap between women and men and the stereotypes that hinder women’s promotion to managerial positions. Therefore, according to the respondent, the disputed regulation serves to balance de facto inequality existing between the women and men in society.
The Constitutional Court established that the disputed norm provided for differential treatment between comparable groups − women and men, on the basis of sex. Since sex is a specifically named ground under Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Constitution of Georgia, the Constitutional Court assessed the discriminatory nature of differential treatment by applying a strict scrutiny test.
The Constitutional Court noted that, in accordance with historically established social roles, a significant proportion of women perform unpaid care and domestic work within the family. Raising children, caring for the elderly and persons with disabilities, as well as organizing and carrying out household chores, have traditionally been perceived by various segments of society as a woman’s responsibilities. Similar gender-based division of roles renders women’s labour into socially necessary yet economically invisible, which limits their full integration into the labour market. As a result, women have fewer opportunities to work full-time, hold stable and well-paid positions, or pursue an uninterrupted professional career capable of ensuring regular and sufficient savings in old age. In addition, maternity, parental and newborn adoption leave, as well as childcare responsibilities, often results in career interruptions, changes in employment form, or part-time work. These factors directly affect the women’s income level, career advancement and the continuity of their employment. Reduced and unstable income, along with periodic interruptions in employment, ultimately result in lower savings and increase the risk of economic vulnerability in old age and of limited access to a decent standard of living.
Additionally, the Constitutional Court clarified that, in most fields, women and men possess equal abilities to perform successfully and effectively. Nevertheless, global data confirm that women’s average earnings systematically fall behind those of men. Among the factors contributing to this disparity, a significant role is played by gender stereotypes entrenched in the labour market, which associate men with leadership, decision-making, and higher-paid positions. At the same time, a high concentration of women in relatively low-paid sectors further reinforces the pay gap. As a result, the income difference between women and men is not merely the outcome of individual choices, but rather the combined effect of structural and cultural factors.
Accordingly, taking into account the above-mentioned circumstances, the Constitutional Court held that the differentiation provided for the disputed norm served an important legitimate aim and therefore the Constitutional Court ruled not to uphold the Constitutional Claim No. 1609.
A dissenting opinion of the Justice of the Constitutional Court Mr. Teimuraz Tughushi is attached to the judgement.
The subject of the dispute: The constitutionality of Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Law of Georgia “On State Pension” in relation to Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Constitution of Georgia.
