Litigation of the High Council of Justice

In 2012-2022, the High Council of Justice was the party in 34 administrative disputes: in 33 cases - the defendant, and in 1 case - the plaintiff. All but one of the disputes ended in favor of the High Council of Justice.

Does the perennial winner status of the High Council of Justice suggest that it always takes the right side of the law or that there are systemic justice issues?

Court rulings in the category of cases that do not reflect the High Council's position would be a powerful defense against claims of supremacy and undue power of the High Council of Justice. However, judges of the Common Courts do not make such judgments. Plaintiffs who seek justice in the courtroom for their interactions with the council are let down.

How impartial is the judge, given the lack of public trust in the court, the strong influence of the High Council of Justice, and corporatism? Do they not have any prior ideas about the High Council of Justice that would undermine their objectivity?

In general, the impartiality of the court can be clearly seen in specific decisions made by the court itself that leave no room for debate or doubt. I wonder to what degree the court's rulings in favor of the High Council of Justice contribute to the public's and litigants' perceptions of the court's independence and objectivity. Let's examine the substance and key points of these decisions to try to address this question.

With whom and why did the High Council of Justice argue for years?

In the past 10 years, individuals, organizations, former judges, persons wishing to become judges, and citizens have appealed to the court against the High Council of Justice. The issues of compensation, termination, discrimination, test results of the judicial qualification exam, and refusal to disclose public information are among the contention topics.

A sizable portion of lawsuits are brought by people who want to be judges. Everyone lost the argument in the end. Here are a few such cases summarised.

Issue concerning the admission to the High School of Justice

In 2016, by the decision of the High Council of Justice, the plaintiff was denied enrolment in the High School of Justice. Through the court, the plaintiff petitioned for cancellation of the administrative and legal act, a writ of mandamus, [TC1] a finding of discrimination, and damages. None of these motions were granted by the court.

The judges’ qualification exams

The plaintiff demanded cancellation of the decision of the High Council of Justice of Georgia in the part in which it considered the second stage of the qualification examination for common court judges - the written test - as “insurmountable;” In addition, it was requested to indicate the word “pass” instead of the word “failed” in the evaluation column of the qualification written examination, where the result is marked. In a decision dated 16 April 2019, the court found the claims for cancellation of the administrative-legal act and issuing an order from a court to be unfounded and did not satisfy the claim.

Contest of Judges

According to the plaintiff, as of November 20, 2017, the High Council of Justice decided against selecting their candidacy for the appointment to the judge's vacant position. The plaintiff pointed out the biased attitude of some members of the High Council of Justice towards them. In addition, they considered that the procedures for announcing the competition and its results had been violated, and the questions to the plaintiff were not related to the assessment of their qualifications. Accordingly, the plaintiff considered the decisions of the High Council questionable and demanded that the High Council of Justice of Georgia conduct a new interview and issue a new individual administrative-legal act. According to the 2018 judgment, the court believed the plaintiff had not shown sufficient evidence to establish the violation. Hence the claim was not satisfied.

There is another interesting case, according to which the plaintiff participated in two competitions for the selection of judges after the judicial term had ended,  but without success because, following the ruling of the High Council of Justice of Georgia, he was not eligible to be appointed to the position of a judge. The plaintiff claimed that it was reasonable to assume that the ground for his different treatment was their critical opinion of the judicial system. The plaintiff claims that because he/she [TC2] was not interviewed about his/her competence or professional skills, the interview with him/her did not serve to evaluate him/her by the criteria established by the "judicial procedure of candidate selection." By the judgment of 05.02.2018, the court did not agree with the plaintiff's assertion that they had experienced discrimination because of their expression of a different opinion and/or membership in a certain organization. 

Dismissal from the service

The Court had to discuss the issue of dismissal from the High Council of Justice on several occasions, including on 31 January 2022, the Tbilisi City Court ruled on a case in which a person employed as Head of Infrastructure Administrator of the Information Technology Group at the High Council of Justice requested to invalidate the Council's decision to terminate the employment relationship due to the expiry of the contract, reinstatement, and compensation for lost income.

However, the Tbilisi City Court did not satisfy the claim. According to the court, the claim for annulment of the decision to terminate labor relations was filed after the expiration of the limitation period, which excluded the possibility of its satisfaction. Based on the above, the court did not review carefully the circumstances related to the claim's validity.

Publicity of Information

In one of the cases against the High Council of Justice, the plaintiff demanded the following documents:

1. A copy of the document or diploma proving the judge of the Tbilisi City Court's higher education.
   2. Copies of the verdict/decisions made by the Tbilisi City Court and the Tbilisi Court of Appeals regarding the judge's claim/complaint concerning the matter of the authenticity of the document/diploma attesting to the judge's higher education.
   3. Copy of the document issued by the authorised body, by which the document confirming the higher education of the judge was equated to the Master's degree.
   In this case, by its decision, the Tbilisi City Court dismissed the claim on June 10, 2021. Besides, on July 13, 2017, the court dismissed the claim by which the plaintiff demanded from the High Council of Justice the audio-video records of conversations with judge candidates. 

The winning plaintiff

The decision of the Tbilisi City Court of 16 August 2016 belongs to the rare exception of disputes concluded in favor of the plaintiff. In the case, the plaintiff was represented by a former judge, while the defendant was represented by the High Council of Justice and the Social Services Agency. 
The plaintiff challenged the issue of calculation of compensation and demanded the issuance of a new act, which would set the compensation from the salary of a judge - 500 GEL, taking into account 24 years of service as a judge, and compensate the difference between the received and not received state compensation from 1 November 2012 to 1 January 2016. It should be noted that the High Council of Justice acknowledged the claim. Accordingly, in the only case that ended in favor of the plaintiff, the High Council of Justice itself acknowledged the claim.

Conclusion

The constant adjudication in favor of one party, especially if that party has excessive power and influence, indicates a worrying trend that can create several problems:

• Injustice: If one party consistently prevails, it may give the impression that the justice system is unfair and that not everyone is treated fairly.
• Bias: If one party consistently prevails, the court may be biased. In turn, bias can be caused by a variety of things, such as inequality and discrimination.
• Failures: If one side consistently prevails, this can indicate that the judiciary isn't functioning correctly.
• Lack of responsibility: This condition may result in the constantly winning side abusing their position and continuing unfair practices, as well as a lack of accountability on their part.
• Loss of faith in the justice system: Even if a person has valid claims against a powerful person or organization, their willingness to go to court to defend their rights may be diminished by repeated decisions that favor one party.

In general, the tendency of the unconditional acceptance of court rulings that favor one party is a trend that clearly contradicts the rule of law, and it is past time to reverse it for the sake of the rule of law and justice. 

For court decisions, see here.

---

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.