Statement of Nongovernmental Organizations about June 9 Conference of Judges

 

Transparency International – Georgia, Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information, the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy, Georgian Lawyers for Independent Profession and the Human Rights Center react to  the 10th extraordinary meeting of the Conference of Judges held on June 9, 2010. 

In light of the recent amendments to the organic law of Georgia on Common Courts, we have been highlighting the importance of the 10th extraordinary Conference of Judges. The Conference was to meaningfully empower the judicial self-government and practice the new regulations for the appointment of members of key parts of the judicial system. 

Notably, the conference was organized in an excellent manner. In view of recommendations put forward by NGOs, due transparency was ensured allowing free monitoring by observers and media representatives. 

Judges did not face any artificial and essential obstacles in expressing their opinion and their will, having discussions or raising issues. Therefore, the Conference of Judges was marked by active participation of judges, who also had an opportunity to make decisions about key issues by putting them to vote. 

Judges expressed divergent opinions about certain issues, including agenda of the conference and the possibility to ask questions to candidates that had been nominated. Majority of participating judges applied a narrow definition of the power of the Conference of Judges as a supreme selfgoverning agency by voting down the proposal to delegate the Conference of Judges with the right to approve agenda of the conference. Notably, majority of members present refused to discharge their power of asking questions to candidates nominated for HCoJ membership. 

Subsequently, judges seeking to ask questions to candidates were deprived from an opportunity to do so. Although from formal and legal point of view, the Conference had the right to make this decision, considering that voters’ right to receive maximum information about views or plans of a candidate is key in any elections, the Conference of Judges should have made a different choice by giving all judges an opportunity to ask questions to candidates. 

Discussions during the conference have showcased that ambiguity of some of the legal norms allow their dual interpretation, which prompted divergent opinions among participants, delaying the process. Therefore, certain legal norms must be improved to avoid as much as possible different interpretation of these norms. In this regard, it is necessary to amend the legal norm that gives certain privileges to judges who serve as chairpersons of collegiums, putting other judges at a disadvantage. 

Nevertheless, we believe that the tenth extraordinary Conference of Judges was the first step forward in continuing the judicial reform and ensuring judicial independence. However, each and every judge should realize their rights delegated by law and their commitments before the society.