Donation GE

Electronic distribution of cases - myth or reality?

17.11.2022
Case distribution

Table of contents

Electronic rule of Case distribution from the first of July 2017, the new rule was enacted in Rustavi City Court, and from December 2017, 31 - throughout the country.
Within the framework of the "third wave" of judicial reform, a new rule for the distribution of cases among judges was developed. The novelty was the distribution of cases based on the principle of randomness, through an electronic system. This approach should ensure equal and objective distribution of cases among judges and create preconditions for their impartial review. That is why local and international organizations have assessed it as a progressive legislative measure.
The rule was approved by the High Council of Justice of Georgia in 2017 by the decision of May 1 N1/56. As a result of the amendment, the authority to make decisions on the distribution of cases was restricted to court chairpersons. According to the Venice Commission, the authority of the chairman of the court to distribute cases among judges contains elements of discretion. There is a risk of misusing it as an instrument to influence the judge. For example, overloading a judge with a large number of cases or transferring only cases of small importance to a judge.1 the Venice Commission and the Directorate emphasized the importance of regulating the system of distribution of cases by the organic law "on common courts".2 despite the recommendations of the Venice Commission, the new rule of distribution of cases was determined not by the organic law, but by the act of the High Council of Justice.

What does the electronic rule of distribution of cases mean?


Electronically, cases are distributed according to the randomization principle, based on the number generation algorithm3, to automatically selected judges of the relevant collegium/ chamber/narrow specialization.4
According to the organic law, in a district (city) court with an extraordinary intensity of proceedings, where there are more than two judges, the High Council of justice can exercise a narrower specialization of judges or create specialized judicial collegues.5 in such courts, cases are distributed electronically among the judges of the respective collegium/narrow specialization.6 and in those Raonic (city) courts where there are no collegiates, the cases are distributed among the judges of the respective specialization.7
The organic law also indicates that in case of temporary interruption of the electronic system of automatic distribution of cases, it is permissible to distribute cases among judges without an electronic system, which means the order of entry of cases and their distribution, as well as according to the alphabetical order of judges.

Cases where cases are not distributed electronically

The rule of electronic distribution of cases defined by the High Council of Justice provides for a number of conditions in which the distribution of cases is objectively impossible. Circumstances that exclude the distribution of cases through the electronic system:

  • Existence of only one magistrate judge in the respective municipality
  • Presence of only one judge of relevant specialization in the district (city) court
  • Duty of only one judge of relevant specialization in the district (city) court
  • Temporary delay of the electronic system - when the delay lasts for more than 2 days; and for immediate consideration of administrative cases and cases whose term of consideration should not exceed 24, 48, or 72 hours - when the delay lasts more than 3 hours. In such cases, the employee of the chancellery distributes cases among judges according to the order.
  • The rule of duty of judges - in particular, in certain administrative and criminal cases, the period of consideration of which does not exceed 72 hours. By order of the Chairman, these cases are distributed according to the duty schedule during non-working and working hours.8


Exceptional cases according to specific specialization

 

The High Council of Justice has additionally defined an extensive list of exceptional cases in civil, administrative, and criminal specializations, which are not distributed by randomization principle and are handed over to the judge issuing the decision/ruling.9
There are 14 exceptions for civil and administrative cases, and 7 for criminal cases.
This is added to the cases provided for by several articles of the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code when cases are distributed not in line with the randomization principle, but to the judge provided for by the legislation.10

Suspension of distribution of cases

There are certain circumstances when the distribution of cases to a particular judge stops, therefore, the number of judges among whom the cases should be distributed decreases.
More specifically:
  1. Cases during holidays, business trips, temporary incapacity for work, pregnancy, and maternity leave are not distributed, except if the duration of vacation, business trip, and temporary incapacity for work does not exceed 5 days and the period for consideration of cases to be distributed exceeds 72 hours.11
  2. In the presence of special objective circumstances, if the period of consideration of the case is at most 72 hours.12
  3. When appointing a judge as a judge of another court, as well as in case of moving to another specialized composition/collegium/Chamber of the same court, cases are not distributed to the judge during the period from the adoption of the relevant decision of the High Council of Justice of Georgia until its enactment.13
The High Council of Justice does not define what is meant by "special objective circumstances". The term" objective circumstances " is such a broad and abstract concept that it is ambiguous in the presence of what circumstances the distribution of cases through an electronic system should be stopped.

The efficiency of electronic case distribution

Electronic distribution of cases is an important and positive part of the ongoing reforms in the judicial system in recent years, the main goal of which is a fair distribution of cases submitted to the court, an equal workload for the judges, ensuring impartial review of cases and increasing the degree of individual independence of judges. However, it is possible to achieve the aforementioned goals only in case of proper functioning of the system: when the possibility of unfair interference in the system and control over the distribution of cases is reduced to a minimum, and the distribution of cases without an electronic system is allowed as a rare exception.
In parallel with the electronic distribution rule, there are several mechanisms established at the legislative level or in practice that prevent the use of the electronic distribution system.

  • An insufficient number of judges.
For many years, the insufficient number of judges has been an unresolved problem in the judicial system. There is only one judge of specific specialization in several courts, which makes it impossible to observe the principle of randomness in the distribution of cases. Moreover, in some courts, there is only one judge who will see cases in all specializations.
  • Determination of narrow specialization by the council.
As mentioned above, in those courts, whereby the decision of the High Council of Justice a narrower specialization of judges was carried out or specialized judicial collegiums were created, cases are distributed among the judges of the respective collegiate/narrow specialization. According to the narrow specialization, the chairman of the court shall single-handedly distribute judges. Such a rule preserves the possibility of influencing the process of distribution of cases and reduces the degree of individual independence of judges.
  • The existing rule of duty of judges.
According to the general rule, the schedule of duty in court is predetermined, however, the chairman of the relevant court may, at any time, unilaterally make a change in the established rule. In addition, the decision N1/56 of the High Council of Justice states that the number of cases distributed in such cases is not taken into account. (Article 1/56 of Decision 4, paragraph 12).
  • An extensive list of exceptional cases where cases are not distributed electronically.
As mentioned above, the High Council of Justice has defined a wide list of cases of each specialization (civil, administrative, criminal), in which cases the cases are not distributed electronically, according to the randomization principle, which significantly reduces the total number of cases to be distributed electronically.
The wide range of factors hindering the application of the electronic rule of distribution of cases and the possibility of distribution of cases bypassing it, logically raises the question: is it a myth or reality to distribute cases electronically in the judicial system of Georgia?!
According to the recommendation of the Venice Commission, the organic law’ clearly’ and’ in detail "defines the rules of electronic distribution of cases and eliminates the existing space for its violations," which can undermine the internal independence of the judiciary."14

Footnotes

  1. The Venice Commission and the Council of Europe Directorate General for Human Rights and rule of law (DGI) of the human rights Directorate (Dr) made a joint report on the draft amendments to the Organic Law of Georgia on common courts". CDL (2014)031, Fri. 69; P. Twenty five
  2. Nearby
  3. In 2017, the decision of the High Council of Justice of May 1, N1/56, on approval of the rule of distribution of cases in the common courts of Georgia automatically, through an electronic system. Article 2, Paragraph 1.
  4. The same, Article 2, Paragraph 2.
  5. Georgia. Organic law "on common courts", Article 30, pp. Two
  6. In 2017, the decision of the High Council of Justice of May 1, N1/56, on approval of the rule of distribution of cases in the common courts of Georgia automatically, through an electronic system. Article 4, paragraph 3.
  7. The same, article 4, paragraph 4.
  8. In 2017, the decision of the High Council of Justice of May 1, N1/56, on approval of the rule of distribution of cases in the common courts of Georgia automatically, through an electronic system. Article 4; point. Twelve
  9. The same, article 3; pp. 2, 3
  10. The same, article 3; pp. Four
  11. In 2017, the decision of the High Council of Justice of May 1, N1/56, on approval of the rule of distribution of cases in the common courts of Georgia automatically, through an electronic system. Article 4; point. Fourteen
  12. Nearby
  13. Same. Article 4; point.One hundred forty two
  14. The Venice Commission and the Council of Europe Directorate General for Human Rights and rule of law (DGI) of the human rights Directorate (Dr) made a joint report on the draft amendments to the Organic Law of Georgia on common courts". CDL (2014)031, Fri. 69; P. Twenty five

---
The materials distributed by courtwatch.ge and published on the website are the property of "Georgian Court Watch", when using them, "Georgian Court Watch" should be indicated as the source.



Author: Keti Gachechiladze
Statement of Georgian non-governmental organizations
Bonuses for the Court Clan
Over half a million extra to the judges
Over half a million additions to the judges
In November, judges will receive a total of more than half a million Lari as an additional allowance
Decisions in favor of the government
Review on appeal
The fight to win back the stolen election
Observation of court sessions
Elections and the judicial system
Questions about the clan
A reputational blow to the clan court
Election disputes
Election dispute in the Court of Appeal
Action with the Court of Appeal
None of the complaints were upheld
The decision of the European Court
Responsibility of the election administration
Judges working on the Election Disputes
Review of claims in district commissions