How are chairmen appointed to common courts?

In general, a court chairperson is an official who can play a proactive role in the process of effective administration of Justice. The Venice Commission explains that"the chairmen of the courts should effectively guide the courts and ensure strong and solid organization of Justice". Thus, a worthy candidate must hold this position and their appointment is preceded by a transparent and fair process, which, on the one hand, will create guarantees of independence for their activities and, on the other hand, will strengthen public confidence in the judicial system.

Who and how can be appointed chairman of the district (city) court?

The chairperson of the district (city) court shall be appointed by the High Council of Justice of Georgia with a reasoned decision from the judges of the respective court for 5 years. Prior to the appointment, the council holds consultations with the respective court judges.

A judge appointed for 3 years may not be appointed as the chairperson of a district (city) court, except for the exception when they have at least 5 years of experience as a judge. In such a case, a judge shall assume the position of chairman of a district (city) court within their term of office.

Who and how can be appointed chairman of the court of Appeal?

Similar requirements are established regarding the appointment of a judge to the position of the chairperson of the court of appeal: it is appointed from the composition of the relevant court for 5 years and by a reasoned decision of the High Council of Justice. An identical rule applies to the appointment of a judge appointed for 3 years. The procedure for selecting the chairperson of the court, the focus of the third wave of judicial reform in 2014, with a letter from May 14, the minister of Justice of Georgia addressed the Venice Commission concerning the draft amendments to the Organic Law of Georgia "on common courts", which e.Y'all. The third wave of judicial reform was prepared.

The draft amendments envisaged two main innovations in the current rule of appointment of the chairmen of the city (district) and appeal courts:

The Venice Commission welcomed and noted that: "the presented system of electing the chairperson of the judiciary by secret ballot by the judges of the same court, which corresponds to the requirements of the principle of internal independence of the judiciary."According to them, the exclusion of the High Council of justice in the process of appointing the chairperson of the court was a step forward.

The Venice Commission explained that "the election of the chairs of the courts by the judges of the same court provides better guarantees of independence compared to the current system, where the chairs of the courts are appointed by the High Council of Justice". However, the Venice Commission also specified that it does not see "a reason for reducing the term of office of court chairmen from five years to three years. On the contrary, as a result of the new procedure proposed by the draft appointment, which provides greater guarantees of independence, judicial chairmen may have an even longer term of office.“

The First Amendment concerning the rule of appointment of the chairperson of the court (election of the chairperson by judges) and which was approved by the Venice Commission was not adopted by the Parliament of Georgia – this amendment was removed from the final version of the draft law altogether.

As for the Second Amendment, which meant the reduction of the term of office of the chairperson from 5 to 3 years and which was not shared by the Venice Commission, the Parliament of Georgia also did not adopt it; however, in this case, it is noteworthy that the Venice Commission did not see the need to reduce the term of office precisely because of the new rule of appointment of court chairperson – proposed by the draft law; And without the introduction of this rule, it was not recommended by the Venice Commission to leave the term unchanged.

The Venice Commission is trying to " find the golden mean between the demands of internal independence of the judiciary on the one hand and the demands of ensuring solid and effective Court organization on the other hand." The decisive criterion in this process is the leverage of the executive authority to influence the process of appointing the chairs of the courts.“

The reasonableness of the term of office of the chairperson of the court should have been assessed in combination with the procedure of his appointment and through the prism of democratic and legal conduct of processes, which did not happen.

Finally, within the framework of the" third wave " reforms, the initial edition of the draft law was changed in such a way that the chairmen of the district (city)and court of appeals are appointed again by the High Council of justice and again for 5 years. Accordingly, the pre-existing legislative record has remained unchanged until now, despite the preparation of the draft law and its consideration and feedback by the Venice Commission.

Why is the current rule of appointing a chairman damaging to the independence and effectiveness of the judiciary?

• The same judges are appointed as chairs of the courts in the same or different courts;
• There is, as a rule, only one candidate in the High Council of justice when considering the issue of appointing a chairman of the court;
• The decision of the High Council of justice to substantiate the appointment of the chairman of the court is formal;
• Interestingly, there are two types of tendencies regarding the term of office of chairmen – either some courts have the same chair for a very long time, or for a very short time:

For example, the court has the same chairman for more than 10 years; as a rule, although the term of office of the chairman is 5 years, the actual terms of the chairmen are much shorter, in some cases even several months.

• A separate issue is that sometimes the court does not have a chairman at all, and the duties are performed by a judge with the greatest experience.

In response to this question, we will first consider the career path of judges appointed to the position of chairman by the Council of justice and we will easily see that the same judge is repeatedly appointed to the position of chairman in different courts.

Chairmen at Tbilisi Court of appeals from 2007 to present

From the study of the practice of appointing chairmen, it becomes clear that in different courts, at different times, the same judges are appointed as chairmen. This indicates that the system retains its special confidants in these positions and it is not easy for other judges to hold high positions.

For the court to be organized effectively, judges should be fairly represented and appointed to administrative positions according to their merits, for which they should be given an equal and real opportunity to participate. Along with all other key powers, this leverage is in the hands of the High Council of justice and is used to strengthen its deeply rooted, influential position. The process of appointing court chairs, taking into account the shortcomings presented and analyzed above, may be assessed as damaging to the independence and effectiveness of the judicial system.

• About Tbilisi City Court, Kutaisi City Court, and appellate courts, please see the infographics - about court, collegium, and chamber chairmen / 2012-2022.
• For information about the heads of the courts of First Instance, Please see the attached file.

---

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.