New Changes in Judiciary System

Tazo Kupreishvili, Netgazeti

According to the draft-law submitted to the Parliament of Georgia, a blatant violation of the law by a judge during court proceeding will not be disciplinary violation.

Members of the Parliament of Georgia from majority – Pavle Kublashvili, Kakhaber Anjaparidze and Zviad Kukava submitted three draft-laws to the parliament several days ago; the bills intend significant amendments in the judiciary system. The lawyers think the adoption of the draft-laws will not improve the judiciary system in the country.

The proposed bills regulate staffing of the Supreme Council of Justice, business-travels and disciplinary responsibilities of judges.

 Disciplinary Responsibilities of Judges

According to the draft-law, paragraph “a” and “j” of the Article 2 of the Law of Georgia on Disciplinary Responsibility and Disciplinary Prosecution of Judges of Common Courts of Georgia are removed from the original text.

According to the draft-law, only Council of Justice will be authorized to carry out preliminary research and study disciplinary case [of the judge]. Gross violation of the law and violation of official duties are removed from the types of disciplinary violations. Additionally, the bill envisages introduction of a special form for a disciplinary complaint including online form of the complaint.

The introduction to the bill clarifies that the draft-law aims to accomplish and modernize disciplinary prosecution process and to ensure more transparency of court proceeding.

Director of the NGO Article 42 of Constitution Nazi Janezashvili believes removal of gross violation of the law and official duties from the acting law is negative decision.

“Paragraph “a” of the Article 2 is very important provision because it listed types of violations among which was gross violation or repeated violation of law in the process of discussion of a case. Gross violation of the law is violation of requirements of the Constitution of Georgia, international conventions and law which caused significant damage or could damage legal rights and interests of the third party,” Nazi Janezashvili told the Netgazeti.

She added the gross violation of the law by judge must be disciplinary violation and the judge must meet law requirements. According to Janezashvili, removal of violation of official duties from the law is also unacceptable.

Sopo Verdzeuli from the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association also thinks that the issue is a problematic. She said the rule of banking of disciplinary collegium is also very significant because they should discuss issue of disciplinary responsibility of a judge.

“We thought there was interest conflict because the Supreme Council of Justice is a body which is authorized to impose disciplinary responsibility over the judge. However, afterwards, the body, which discusses the case, is a disciplinary collegium. The latter will be staffed with the members of the Supreme Council of Justice and we think here is the interest conflict. A body, which discusses the case essentially, cannot be staffed by a body which imposes the responsibility over the judge; however, the law-makers did not envisage this fact,” said Sopo Verdzeuli.

The proposed draft-law reads that a judge cannot launch process on one and the same case for the reinforcement of legal guarantees; before launching the proceeding, they should carry out preliminary investigation. Besides that, the legality of judiciary acts passed by a judge will not be checked.

Political Neutrality of the Supreme Council of Justice

In the view of judiciary independence, Sopo Verdzeuli of GYLA thinks that the main problem is new rule of staffing of the Supreme Council of Justice. According to the current law, chairman of the Supreme Council has individual authority to name member judges for the Supreme Council of Justice and the conference of judges votes for them.

“We thought the judge conference, which is independent self-government of judges, shall be authorized to name their candidates and vote for them,” said lawyer Sopo Verdzeuli. She said the new draft-law does not change it and she hopes the MPs will raise the question during discussion.

GYLA representative thinks the topic of political neutrality of the Supreme Council of Justice is also important. For example, if parliament elects members of the Supreme Council of Justice among its members, it will influence the political neutrality of the Council.

The proposed draft-law gives opportunity only to a judge of the general court to occupy the position of the secretary of the Supreme Council of Justice; thus it will reinforce the majority principle in the council. 

The draft-law prohibits a representative of the President of Georgia to implement political activities in the Council. The amendments also regulate decision making process about the appointment of a judge. Particularly, the current regulation will be abolished which envisages notification of one member from all three governmental branches to make final decision.

Business Travels of Judges

One of the initiatives regulates business travels of judges. According to the bill, paragraph 21st will be added to the Article 13 of the Law which will allow a judge to work in different court up to one year time based on his/her notification. Due to judiciary interests, the Supreme Council of Justice will be authorized to make decision without relevant notification from the judge about his/her appointment in another court; however, in this case more than half of Council members shall vote for the decision. The business travel can be prolonged up to 1 year based on the judge’s notification.

Sopo Verdzeuli of GYLA said initially the institute was completely unregulated and the draft-law introduces amendment which will change the situation for better.

“Our main position was that mechanism and formulation of the current business travel institute was so obscure and unregulated, that it could be used against the judge. The proposed version improves the situation but is not accomplished due to lack of notes in it,” said Sopo Verdzeuli.

She added the draft-law does not provide enough guarantees for judiciary independence. It should have required notification from the judge about business travel because the Supreme Council of Justice can use the mechanism “judiciary interest” as a tool to oppress the judge.

Sopo Verdzeuli said the Supreme Council of Justice discussed these issues for a long time with the non-governmental organizations. 

The lawyer thinks the initiated topics are not enough to achieve real results which were largely discussed by NGOs.

“We can say that the proposed changes were not enough,” said a lawyer from the GYLA.

The first hearing of the draft-laws is scheduled at one of the next sessions in the legal committee of the Parliament. Netgazeti tried to get in touch with the initiators of the draft-law but in vain.