We call on the President of Georgia to veto the amendments to the Law on Common Courts, as they significantly limit the independence of the individual judge and cancel the results of the four waves of the reform.

 

The Parliament of Georgia hastily adopted the draft Organic Law of Georgia on Amendments to the Organic Law of Georgia on Common Courts (07-3/149/10) in all three readings. The draft law significantly reduces the legal guarantees for the independence of individual judges, while increasing the risk of arbitrary decision-making relating to judges by the influential group existing in court.

 

In particular, the problematic issues are:

 

• The draft law brings back the rule of secondment of a judge to another court that existed before 2012 and that was widely used to punish disobedient judges. The amendments carried out within the framework of the so-called first wave of the judicial reform provided significant safeguards against arbitrary use of secondment of judges without their consent by the Council of Justice, which are now being repealed by the draft law. As a result, the influential group of judges - the so-called "clan" - is given the leverage to continue to apply the rule of "sending undesirable judges to Syberia" without any legal restrictions.

• The draft law allows only judge members of the Council of Justice to make decisions relating to disciplinary actions against judges. This rule was also part of the edition existing before the "waves" of the judicial reform. It is recognized by international standards that decision-making, especially relating to disciplinary action, by only judge members of the Council arouses corporatism in the judiciary.

• The draft law repeals the ban, according to which a person cannot be elected as a member of the High Council of Justice twice in a row. This repeal limits the diversity of judges and representatives of the public in the Council and helps the influential group of judges retain crucial administrative positions in the judiciary. This change also means a return to the model existing before 2012.

• The draft law contains an alarming norm on the possibility of removing a judge from a case under consideration, after disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him/her and until the final decision is made, thus creating the risks of gross subjective interference with the judge's activities.

It is noteworthy that despite the high importance and problematic content, the expedited procedure for the consideration of the draft law by the Parliament has not been substantiated; The text of the draft law had not been available to the relevant committees before it was considered; The rapporteur or initiators of the bill did not provide reasoned answers to any of the important questions of stakeholders and no substantive discussion was held on the content of the draft law; None of the substantive proposals of stakeholders, which could have not worsened the guarantees for the protection of judges, was considered; Members of Parliament present at the Legal Affairs Committee had no questions about the bill; No consultations were held during the drafting process, despite the fact that the draft law cancels a significant part of the reforms carried out in an inclusive process; The draft law was negatively assessed by some judges; The Council of Justice did not respond to the draft law, suggesting that its content was pre-agreed with the influential group in court.

 

We call on the President of Georgia to use her constitutional powers and veto the draft law submitted for signature.

 

The signatory organizations are:

 

Democracy Index - Georgia

 

Independent Lawyers Group

 

Democracy Research Institute