Suspension of Café Terrace Permit Without a Hearing
On 5 April 2024, Tbilisi City Hall issued an order suspending for 60 days the outdoor-terrace permit of Café L., citing three noise complaints from neighbours and 'public interest'. The order was based on an inspection report the café never saw; no hearing was held. The order stated it was immediately enforceable to prevent 'ongoing disturbance'. The café has 18 employees and monthly revenue of about 25,000 GEL; the terrace seats 40. On 17 April, Café L. filed an administrative claim in Tbilisi City Court seeking annulment and interim relief suspending the order. City Hall argues the appeal is late because the order was posted on its website on 5 April and the café knew. The café says it received the order on 9 April. Under national law, court challenge is possible within one month of notification; interim relief may be granted to prevent irreparable harm.
1. Is Café L.'s claim timely? When did the one-month appeal period begin?
Read the worked answer
The appeal period ordinarily begins when the individual administrative act is notified to the affected person, not when it is published on a website. Publication may be relevant for general acts or where the law expressly provides that publication equals notification. Here the act is directed at Café L. and affects its individual permit. The café states that it received the order on 9 April; City Hall has not shown personal notification on 5 April. Website posting is not, without more, personal notification. If the one-month period runs from 9 April, the claim filed on 17 April is well within time. City Hall's lateness objection should fail.
Even if the law allowed notification by publication, the authority would need to prove that the publication was the method prescribed for this type of act and that the café could reasonably have known it was the operative notification. A general website posting of many orders does not meet that standard. The court should therefore treat the claim as timely and proceed to the merits, unless City Hall produces a signed delivery receipt or other proof of earlier personal notification.
2. Was the suspension order lawful? Address the failure to hold a hearing, the reasons given, and proportionality.
Read the worked answer
The order has several procedural weaknesses. Before issuing an adverse individual act, the administrative body must generally hear the affected person and give access to the evidence relied on. The café never saw the inspection report and had no chance to respond to the noise complaints. An urgency exception can dispense with a prior hearing, but the authority must justify it with concrete facts. Saying 'ongoing disturbance' and 'public interest' is not enough. The order also lacks adequate reasons: it does not identify the measurements, the times of the noise, the legal basis for immediate enforcement, or why lesser measures would not work.
On proportionality, a 60-day suspension of the entire terrace is a severe measure for three complaints. The authority should have considered less restrictive steps: warning, noise limits, reduced hours, sound barriers, conditions on music, or a shorter suspension. The café employs 18 people and earns about 25,000 GEL monthly; the impact is substantial. The court should annul the order unless City Hall proves that the noise created a serious and imminent danger that could not be addressed by conditions. The failure to disclose the inspection report also violates the right to a fair administrative procedure.
3. Should the court grant interim relief suspending the order before the merits are decided?
Read the worked answer
Interim relief requires a preliminary assessment of the merits and a balancing of harms. The café has a strong prima facie case because of the lack of hearing, the undisclosed report, and the thin reasoning. Immediate enforcement would cause lost revenue, possible layoffs, and loss of customer goodwill, which may be difficult to repair even if the café later wins. City Hall's interest in controlling noise is legitimate, but it can be protected by conditions rather than a complete closure.
The court should therefore consider suspending the enforcement of the order pending judgment, possibly with conditions such as limits on music, closing hours, or noise monitoring. If the court finds that suspension would create an immediate health risk, it may refuse suspension but should still expedite the merits. The decision must be reasoned and issued quickly, because a 60-day suspension may expire before a normal hearing. Interim relief should not be treated as a final finding that the order is unlawful.