How did the High Council of Justice substantiate the appointment of Mikheil Chinchaladze and other chairmen?

The High Council of Justice of Georgia is obliged to provide written substantiation of individual decisions.1 it is interesting how such important decisions of the High Council of justice as the appointment of court chairs are formulated.

How is the High Council of justice guided in making decisions and on what basis does it consider this or that person worthy for the position of the chairman of the court?

In June and July 2022, the High Council of justice appointed chairmen of several courts of First Instance, as well as Tbilisi and Kutaisi Court of Appeals for 5 years.

• On June 27, Mikheil Chinchaladze was appointed chairman of the Tbilisi Court of Appeals, and Ararat Esoyan – chairman of the Akhalkalaki District Court.
• On July 18 – Irakli Bondarenko as chairman of the Kutaisi Court of Appeals and Mamia Pkhakadze as chairman of the Rustavi City Court.

Despite the fact that the High Council of Justice is obliged to publish substantiated decisions on the official website of the council in a timely manner, these decisions on the appointment of judges have not been available on the website of the High Council of justice for a long time.

The content of each decision, conditionally, can be divided into several parts: 1. Formal part; 2. Justification of the decision and 3. Operative part - a decision on the appointment.

The formal part of the decision is similar in all cases and includes:

A. Name of the issue to be discussed;
B. Issue initiation date;
C. The relevant article and paragraph of the Organic Law, gives the council the authority to resolve this issue.  

At the same time, all decisions contain an indication that the High Council of Justice shall consult with the judges of the relevant court before appointing the chairperson of the court.

As for the part of the justification – the justification for the appointment of each person is basically identical and relies on similar arguments. All of them contain scarce information, are general in nature, and do not sufficiently substantiate the candidate's compliance with the position held.

Justification of Mikheil Chinchaladze's appointment

He has experience working as a chairman of the court and his work [judges who participated in consultations held at the High Council of justice] is assessed only positively. The judges noted that he is a good manager, during his presidency the office worked properly, without interruption. It was also noted that by appointing M. Chinchaladze as the chairman of the court, a healthy and competitive environment will be maintained among the employees.

Justification of Irakli Bondarenko's appointment

He has the qualities necessary to work as a manager, has a good reputation and in the short time he works at the Kutaisi Court of Appeals, healthy working relations have been established between him and the judges, as well as the court staff.

Justification of Mamia Pkhakadze's appointment

He is a manager with outstanding personal qualities, who constantly cares for improving the material and technical base of the court. He enjoys high authority among judges and the court apparatus.

Managerial qualities and length of judicial activity are unchanged in the decisions on appointment with all candidates. It is noteworthy that in the case of Mamia Pkhakadze and Irakli Bondarenko, their good reputation and authority are emphasized in the court, and there is no such argument regarding Mikheil Chinchaladze.

About the justification of Ararat Esoyan

The decision of the Council of justice on Ararat Esoyan does not indicate professional or personal skills, except for 15 years of experience in the position.

All four members of the High Council of Justice unanimously supported them. It should be noted that after holding consultations with judges, the High Council of Justice made decisions on the chairmen of the courts on the same day. 


Footnote

1. Organic Law of Georgia" on common courts", art. 47, pun. One hundred sixty-two

---

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.