How was the 2022 Judicial Strategy and Action Plan developed by the Parliament (not) implemented? 

On 8^th of November 2023, the European Commission on Wednesday issued the recommendation to grant Georgia the European Union membership candidate status. The assessment document contains nine conditions which Georgia shall fulfill. The sixth condition refers to comprehensive judicial reform, including the High Council of Justice. The mentioned document also talks about the Judicial Strategy and Action plan, prepared by the Parliament of Georgia last year.

European Commission, Report on Georgia (09/11/2023): “The strategy and action plan do not address key challenges in the justice system and do not include major strategic items (detailed analysis of implementation of previous reforms and remaining challenges, sequence of actions, timelines, definition of responsible bodies, indicators, monitoring mechanism, etc.).”

Last year, Georgian Court Watch stated on the judicial strategy, that the document did not respond to the major challenges of the justice system, such as judicial accountability, transparency, independence, etc. 

In November, De-oligarchization Plan prepared by the Georgian government was published. It is noteworthy, that the judicial part of the de-oligarchization plan meticulously repeats 12 out of 16 topics of the 2022 Judicial strategy. This directly proves that the goals of 2022 judicial strategy have almost not been fulfilled.

Judicial Strategy and Action plan consists of 16 major topics in total. We’ll discuss each of them below. 

Topic #1:

Ensuring optimal number of judges and judicial officials to perform assigned tasks and duties in a reasonable timeframe and maintain high quality of activities.

- No effective measures were taken to ensure optimal number of judges and judicial officials in justice system. 

Currently, 334 judges exercise their authority in the Common Courts system. There are more than 100 vacancies for the position of a judge. Additionally, according to the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) standards, 737 judges should be exercising their duties in Georgia. Considering these data, it is almost impossible for the judges to perform assigned tasks and duties in a reasonable timeframe and maintain high quality. 

Topic #2:

Decreasing case workflow and addressing issue of high workload in the courts, requiring the development and promotion of alternative means of dispute resolution, through arbitration, as well as mediation.

- It can be said that certain measures were taken in terms of alternative means of dispute resolution, however decreasing the case workflow in the courts still remains an important challenge. 

To raise awareness on the mediation, the Mediators Association of Georgia held several events in 2022-2023. It is worth mentioning that mediation centers were opened in various regions in the same period. As for the arbitration, several events were held here too. As the public sources reveal, international donor organizations significantly promote the development of alternative means of dispute resolution. 

Topic #3:

Improving quality of court decision justifications and further supporting capacity building of judges and court personnel.

- Measures taken towards Improving quality of court decision justifications and professional development of judges and court personnel remain unknown. Georgian Court Watch address the Parliament of Georgia and the High Council of Justice requesting public information on 14th of November 2023, however, none of them provided relevant information. Generally, it shall be mentioned that HCoJ has been regularly conducting trainings for judges and court officials for years.

Topic #4:

Improving the mechanisms for introducing the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights.

- With the decision of the High Council of Justice, and based on the legislative changes, an analytical service was established in the Court of Appeal of Kutaisi, whose main function is facilitate access to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights for judges and to analyze the European Court of Human Rights decisions. As the courts do not make their decision public, it is hard to say what was the effect of the legislative amendment, or establishment of the mentioned unit within the court. 

Topic #5:

Strengthening social protection guarantees for judges.

- Social protection guarantees for judges have not improved since the adoption of the Judicial Strategy and Action Plan. 

Topic #6:

- Further development of topics related to the transparency of the judiciary.

No significant measures were taken to improve judicial transparency. We can say, the situation in the justice system got even worse. 

Transparency includes the publication of the reports, as well as disclosure of decisions, and availability of public information. In this regard, it is appropriate to review each component:

• The judiciary does not regularly publish reports to inform the public about the system's activities. This is proven by the fact that the latest report published by the Supreme Court plenum dates back to 2018, The one published by the High Council of Justice – to 2019 Department of Common Courts – to 2020, and the report of the Independent Inspector of the HCoJ – to 2021;
• No court decisions, except for the decisions of the Supreme Court, are available on the webpage (www.ecd.court.ge) since 2020;
• In terms of transparency, the issuance of court decisions upon request is problematic, however, in some cases, Rustavi City Court and Gori and Telavi district courts ensure the issuance of decisions. Supreme Court of Georgia is the only court, which provides court decisions in full, in a timely manner, established by law;
• It is important to mention that, during last year, most of the courts responded to only a small part of the public information requests from the Georgian Court Watch, proving that obtaining public information from the courts has a number of obstacles;
• None of the courts in Georgia has a specially designated person included in the staff list, who would solely ensure the provision of public information. It is also problematic, that in most cases there is no contact information of the person responsible for public information provision (the phone number indicated often does not belong to a person responsible for information provision). 

Considering the above, we can state that the quality of judicial transparency for the last year was not satisfactory. 

Topic #7:

Further strengthening of trust in the judiciary through increasing public awareness and communication, improving prevention mechanisms of disinformation addressed towards the judiciary.

- In terms of improving communication with the public, the High Council of Justice has not developed a new Communication Strategy and Action Plan in 2023. In addition, the number of speaker judges has not increased in the Common Courts. At the moment, only the Tbilisi City Court and Court of Appeals have the mentioned position. In the context of providing information to the public, webpages and social networks of the courts are almost non-functional. Thus, increasing public awareness is not a priority for the judicial system.

Topic #8:

Further strengthening of jury institution.

Topic #9:

Broadening practice of using electronic means in judicial case proceedings.

Topic #10:

Improving material-technical and technological infrastructure, introduction of new services.

Topic #11:

Ensuring fully accessible environment for persons with disabilities, as well as creating relevant environment for the best interest of the child.

Topic #12:

Improving translation services to ensure proper protection of the right to fair trial.

Topic #13:

Strengthening High School of Justice to properly ensure preparation of an appropriate number of trainees, necessary for the unhindered process of lifetime assignment of judges from 1st of January 2025.

#8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13 – According to the publicly available resources, no major changes were implemented to address these issues. 

Topic #14:

The regulations of the Parliament of Georgia should determine the obligation of the Parliament to hear the candidates for membership of the Council at a public hearing of the Committee, in the process of selecting non-judge members of the High Council of Justice, taking into account the applicable norms of the Constitution of Georgia.

- Reform topic #14 has been fulfilled. On 13th of June 2023, the following amendment was made to Clause 7 of the Article 208 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Georgia: “In order to determine the compliance of candidates for membership of the High Council of Justice of Georgia with the legislation of Georgia, the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Issues shall hear each candidate at an open meeting”. 

Topic #15:

It is advisable to improve and refine certain topics related to the selection rules for the non-judicial members of the High Council of Judges, taking into account the applicable norms of the Constitution of Georgia; In particular, it is appropriate that in the process of selecting a judge members of the High Council of Justice by the Conference of Judges of Georgia, the candidates are allowed to present their views to the Conference.

- in June 2023, the following statement was added to Clause 3 of Article 65 of Georgian Organic Law on Common Courts: “A candidate has the right to address the Conference of Judges of Georgia before voting and express his/her attitudes and views on issues related to his/her exercise of authority as a member of the Council, in case of his/her election as a member of the HCoJ of Georgia”.

Georgian Court Watch believes it should become mandatory for the Council membership candidate to express his/her views to the Conference of Judges. 

Topic #16:

The Constitution Court of Georgia, with its decision of 2019, declared unconstitutional the normative content of certain legislative norms, which excludes the release of the full text of court acts obtained as a result of open court sessions as public information. Therefore, it is advisable to implement corresponding legislative changes, which will ensure the conformity of the law with the Constitution of Georgia and the approaches outlined in this decision of the Constitutional Court.

- In terms of the publication of court decisions, this year, changes were made in the Organic Law on Common Courts of Georgia, according to which, the full text of the court act adopted by the court as a result of the open court session, on a relevant case, becomes public information the moment a final decision of the court enters into legal force, and is issued in the manner established by the General Administrative Code of Georgia for the issuance of public information. Additionally, a depersonalized version of the mentioned court action a relevant case is published on the webpage after the final court decision enters into legal force. 

Thus, the amendment do not directly apply to the court decisions taken on the past and only those decisions are made available which enter into force.  Therefore, it is important how the justice system introduces the amendment in practice starting from 1st of January when it comes into force. At this stage, the topic cannot be considered as fully fulfilled. 

Analysis of the Judicial Strategy and Action Plan and its results reveal that:

1. Judicial Strategy and Action Plan does not respond to existing challenges in the court;
   
   
2. Goals, which the Parliament considered important and set in the 2022 Judicial Strategy and Action Plan, were almost not fulfilled.
   Ana Chiqovani