Source: https://article42.ge/en
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:12:50+00:00

Document:
Since 2004, Georgian judiciary could overcome systemic corruption, however, found itself under strict control of executive power. A small group of persons, the clan, with high administrative positions ensured the obedience of judges towards the political party in power and ensuring execution of the demands of the executive.
The new government, which came to power in 2012 tried to dissolve the defective system of governance in the judiciary but could not do it and finally entered into cooperation with the clan. As the result of this cooperation, the clan obtained additional leverages. From 2017, the clan was provided with the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court Justices for life.
See the article of Chair of Article 42 of the Constitution - Kakha Tsikarishvili, which describes clan-based governance in the judiciary since 2007.
Article 42 calls upon Parliament of Georgia to fully acknowledge and reflect in the draft legislative package the Venice Commission opinion concerning the appointment of Supreme Court Judges.
Organization “Article 42 of the Constitution” responds to death of two construction workers on March 31, at #31 Chavchavadze Ave. and the peaceful protest rally held by the activists and assumes, that the Government failed to realize fundamental rights of the gathered people.
The lives and health of people at hazardous work is unprotected and risky, and the number of dead and injured workers is alarming.
Effective investigation of death cases and health damage in place of employment still remains a problem, together with granting appropriate qualification to these cases and impunity of those responsible. The State’s labor policy leaves socially vulnerable people even more unprotected, for whom physical work is the only source of income.
Yesterday's manifestation, held to criticize the state's labor policy, where police had to ensure the peaceful conduct of the protest, ended by detention of 6 persons.
Activists, who tried to express their solidarity to the dead by blocking Chavchavadze Avenue, were arrested using disproportionate force for violation of public order and disobedience to the lawful demand of the police.
 The city and district courts have only discussed 35 cases regarding occupational accidents and made decision of imprisonment as a real punishment only in 2 cases. Source: Parliamentary Report of the Public Defender, 2018.
In today’s judgement, as of March 26, in the collective application of individual cases “Berdzenishvili and others v. Georgia” European Court of Human Rights held Russian Federation to pay compensation to the citizens of Georgia.
The case concerns violation of the European Convention of Human Rights against Georgian citizens subjected to an administrative practice of arrest, detention and expulsion in the period from October 2006 to January 2007.
NGO “Article 42 of the Constitution” represented the rights of 7 victims expelled by the Russian Federation. Under the decision of December 20, 2016, the European Court has consolidated these applications into one group “Berdzenishvili and others v. Russia” (no. 14594/07, 14597/07, 14976/07, 14978/07,15221/07, 16369/07 and 16706/07) and established violation of several relevant articles of the Convention, however it has left open the issue of compensation until settlement of an inter-state dispute.
Under the ruling of Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of January, 2019 over the inter-state case “Georgia v. Russia” Russian Federation has to pay 10 million Euros in compensation for nonpecuniary damages related to mass deportation of Georgians from Russia (see the organization’s announcement here).
After making a decision on compensation for an inter-state dispute, the European Court also discussed and made a judgement on just satisfaction of the applicants on individual cases.
· Applicants, who had suffered a violation of their rights under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 alone (prohibition of collective expulsion of foreign citizens), should receive EUR 2,000 each. (2 applicants represented by the Organization).
· Applicants, who had suffered a violation of rights under paragraph 1, Article 5 (right to liberty and security / right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) and Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) will be awarded EUR 10 000 to EUR 15 000 according to the period of their detention. (5 applicants represented by the Organization).
Under to the same decision, the European Court did not establish a violation of the principle of prohibition of collective expulsion of foreigners against applicants who left the Russian Federation by their own will and there was no official decision of the Russian court or other state authority on their expulsion.
Also, the Court did not find a violation of procedural guarantees related to expulsion of foreigners (Article 1 of Protocol No. 7) against applicants who were illegally residing at the territory of Russian Federation.
The decision of the European Court shall come into force in three months, if the parties do not require the case to be transferred to the Grand Chamber. Russian Federation will have to pay the above compensations within three months from the date when the decision enters into force.
In turn, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors fulfillment of this obligation by the Russian Federation.
The resaerch was prepared by Aticle 42 ot the constitution, which was sapported by Fridrich Ebert's fond.
A 24 hour hotline became operational at “Article 42 of the Constitution” for asylum-seekers, refugees and humanitarian status holders in Georgia.
If you seek an advice on asylum procedures and want to know more about your rights as asylum seeker, refugee or humanitarian status holder, call 593 111 405.
On behalf of Georgian people, who are deeply concerned with the ongoing state of judiciary in the country, we are contacting you as active supporters of Georgia’s democratic development. On different occasions we have addressed government, political entities and various institutions regarding these concerns. However, we have not approached you on this matter before, as decisions regarding the development of the country should be carried out by its citizens and international partners can only provide their kind recommendations and support in this regard. Nevertheless, we have decided to approach you directly with our grievances, as we see the risks that your name and resources could be misused to legitimize the process, which instead of creating an independent judiciary aims to strengthen influences of interested group within the judiciary.
Georgian population has experienced unfair justice practices on the large-scale throughout its history. Society is fully aware that at present vital decisions are being made regarding the justice system. Unfortunately, latest developments on the subject have demonstrated that the steps taken were not sufficient for the creation of strong and independent judiciary.
Georgian justice system at present is facing certain abnormalities. Activities and erroneous reforms of present and former governments, has enabled small group of judges to take control over the High Council of Justice. Mentioned group uses its capacity to strengthen their power instead of improving the judiciary itself. Societal trust towards the system declines daily and the reform itself is in the dead-end.
It is fallacious to assume that drafting selection procedures and criteria for the Supreme Court judges could straighten the crisis, which the justice system is facing. Only way out of this dire situation is the resignation of members of the so called “clan”, alongside with their 11 supporters sitting at the High Council of Justice and only afterwards we could truly talk about the reformation of the Council.
As of now Chairman of the Parliament facilitates the process of drafting selection procedures and criteria of assigning new members to the Supreme Court. As you might know, multitude of actors protested against the undemocratic format and agenda of the meeting held by the Chairman on 27th of January.
Amidst this tension, Parliament publicizes the news of meeting Speaker of the Parliament with diplomatic corps to discuss the details of apparently finalized version of the draft law. Additionally, according to provided information, certain alterations to the draft has been made based on your recommendations. We cannot be certain how well this information reflects the real context of your meeting, however, we stay hopeful that without the consultation with interested parties the diplomatic corps would have not expressed its support towards the draft.
Draft law about which only general ideas are known to us, seems to be created in a way, to formally officiate the outcomes which the influential group of judges intended to achieve in December last year.
- To take into consideration that clear procedures and criteria can only serve its purpose, if the High Council of Justice will be fully renewed in accordance with pluralistic approach.
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on January 31 over the inter-state case “Georgia v. Russia” (1) that the Russian Federation has to pay 10 million Euros in compensation for nonpecuniary damages related to mass deportation of 1500 ethnic Georgians from Russia in the period from October 2006 to January 2007.
- compensation for nonpecuniary damage EUR 10,000 to EUR 15,000 to those of them who were also victims of a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 3 of the Convention (inhuman and degrading treatment for detention conditions), taking into account the length of their respective periods of detention.
Under the ECHR decision Georgia shall establish an effective mechanism for such distribution of respective amounts to individual victims under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
The case originated in an application (no. 13255/07) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court by Georgia on 26 March 2007.
In a judgment of 3 July 2014, the Court held that in the period from October 2006 to January 2007 a coordinated policy of arresting, detaining and expelling Georgian nationals had been put in place in the Russian Federation which amounted to an administrative practice for the purposes of Convention case-law. Such actions of Russian Federation had been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security, non-existence of legal remedy), Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment for detention conditions), Article 13 of the Convention (right to effective remedy), Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (expulsion of Georgian citizens in that period was an administrative practice).
15221/07, 16369/07 and 16706/07) and established violation of relevant articles of the Convention, however it has left open the issue of compensation until settlement of an inter-state dispute. The issue of distributing compensation to these persons will be decided after today’s ruling.
Another case, where the interests of the victims were protected by the organization – “Shioshvili and others v. Russia” (no. 19356/07), the European Court of Human Rights has satisfied the application and imposed payment of EUR 30 000 to Russian Federation for compensation of nonpecuniary damage. The compensation has already been paid to the victims.
On January 29, Organization “Article 42 of the Constitution” has held a conference on the topic “Promotion of employment of persons with disabilities” at hotel “Iota”, Tbilisi.
At the conference the organization presented report prepared within the project “Employment problems of persons with disabilities” and also recommendations, elaborated during the project implementation. Discussion was held at the end of the conference.
Organization “Article 42 of the Constitution” started implementation of the project “Promotion of employment of persons with disabilities” since October 1, 2018, by financial support of the EBERT fund.
Under the recently amended Constitution the High Council of Justice is responsible for nominating the Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges. So far a procedure and additional qualification requirements for nominating candidates for the positions of the Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges have not been established in the organic law. Despite this fact at the December 24, 2018 meeting the High Council of Justice presented the list of the Supreme Court judicial candidates based on a completely non-transparent procedure and in violation of the legislative requirements. The list was sent to the Parliament for approval. It includes the judges notorious for making unjust decisions in high-profile cases and raising questions due to the lack of independence and impartiality.
We believe that in view of the Supreme Court’s importance and role, its judges have to meet higher standards compared to the first and second instance judges. The Supreme Court has to include professionals, who are not only knowledgeable and experienced, but also highly reputable in professional circles and larger society. The judges, who are not trusted in the society and are not distinguished for an honest and impartial attitude to work, will not be able to ensure justice and will keep the judiciary in the state of the least trusted institution for decades thereby hampering the country’s democratic development.
The ruling party has to adequately comprehend the critical state of the judicial system and recognize its responsibility for the negative outcomes of lifetime appointment of candidates nominated for the Supreme Court.
The Coalition is calling on the Parliament of Georgia to start working on the amendments to the Organic law on the Common Courts aimed at establishing additional qualification requirements corresponding to the high status of a Supreme Court judges and defining the rules for nominating the Supreme Court judicial candidates.
The Parliament of Georgia has to refrain from considering the candidates already nominated by the High Council of Justice prior to the adoption of the above mentioned amendments. The selection process has to be renewed only after the relevant legislative changes are made. The legislative body has to evaluate compliance of the candidates nominated under these rules to the requirements established in the Constitution and the legislation.
The changes to the Constitution of Georgia, which entered into effect upon the swearing in of the newly elected President, aimed at depoliticizing the appointment of the Supreme Court justices and making this process professional and merit-based. This spirit of the Constitution has not been reflected in the Organic Law on Common Courts of Georgia and to this time there are no clear procedures or criteria by which the High Council of Justice is to nominate candidates. Under these circumstances the High Council of Justice did not wait for legislative amendments and submitted to the Parliament a list of candidates that was drawn up by several judges behind closed doors.
· The one page letter of the HCOJ to the Parliament does not contain any substantiation regarding the nominated candidates.
The identity of the candidates is important to note. Of the ten, seven are notable for occupying, in past or currently, key positions in the justice system and have influence on all major decisions regarding the management of the judicial branch. The names of Mikheil Chinchaladze, Giorgi Mikautadze, Dimitri Gvritishvili, Tamar Alania, Merab Gabinashvili, Giorgi Tkavadze, and Paata Silagadze have for years been associated with clan governance and corporatism in the justice system. Among them the nomination of the two acting members of the HCOJ, Giorgi Mikautadze and Dimitri Gvritishvili further illustrates that members of the HCOJ abuse this high office for own private interests.
Additionally, among the nominated candidates are the judges who’s certain past decisions have been fiercely criticized by various organizations, including the Ombudsman’s reports. Nomination of these candidates was conducted without studying and addressing a single problem related to the nominated candidates’ biographies.
The only lever to alleviate the existing situation in the judiciary and avert further strengthening and solidification of clan governance rests with the Parliament and the ruling majority. On December 26, after the protests of various public groups and negative reaction from certain members of the ruling Georgian Dream, the Speaker of Parliament made a statement that the Parliament will not make a decision on appointment of Supreme Court Justices in the current session and will return to hearing the issue at the beginning of the spring session.
We command the fact that the ruling government has changed its mind on speedily hearing the issue, however, this is not enough. It is of principle importance, that the Parliament refuse to discuss the existing list of candidates for the Supreme Court appointments.
· start the selection process only after adopting the legislative amendments and nominate the candidates anew, following the rules set.
The Coalition also calls on the Speaker of Parliament, Irakli Kobakhidze and the Chair of the Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee, Eka Beselia, to meet with the Coalition member organizations and other interested groups without delay, and discuss the Coalition’s proposals regarding the selection and appointment of the Supreme Court justices and set a specific plan of action on this issue.
Establishment of State Inspector Service and its timely introduction is a significant reform, which shall facilitate fight against improper treatment, and impartial and effective investigation of crimes committed by public servants and/or their equal persons against human rights and freedoms.
Timely implementation of this reform is essential for effective enforcement of number of decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights against Georgia on improper treatment, creation of impartial investigation standard and establishment of credibility towards such investigation.
The explanatory note to the draft law indicates that the government of Georgia cannot attain all the measures for handing over all material-technical and financial resources to State Inspector Service and the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia till January 1, 2019, as it was initially envisaged by the law.
Considering the fact that the law of Georgia on “State Inspector Service” was adopted as early as July, 2018, the preparatory period up to 6 months should have been sufficient to ensure fulfillment of all measures determined by the transitional provisions of the law.
Suspending the enactment of law for more 6 months by the abovementioned reasoning and accelerated discussion of the draft law may contain signs of creating artificial barriers to enacting the law, negatively impacting achievement of important goals, timely and effective implementation of which is part of international obligations undertaken by Georgia.
On December 14, The Constitutional Court of Georgia made decision on the case “Citizens of Georgia – Jimsher Tskhadadze and Mamuka Chanturia vs The Parliament of Georgia”; The lawyer of the organization “Article 42 of the Constitution” - Archil Chopikashvili was protecting the rights of the claimant at the Constitutional Court.
According to the dispute norm, age limit for serving as a bailiff is 50 years. As per claimants’ position, quality of performing bailiff’s duties is connected with specific skills and does not depend on person’s age. Appropriately, the dispute norm under which persons exceeding 50 years of age are restricted to work as bailiffs is discriminative and violates the right to occupy and serve at relevant position in public service.
The Constitutional Court has clarified that in certain circumstances envisaged by law, bailiffs are authorized to use physical force, special means and firearm; accordingly, complete fulfillment of bailiff’s duties is significantly related to person’s physical training and health conditions. Though, evidence examined on this case did not prove that achieving the age of 50 by itself meant the loss of skills required for performing bailiff’s duties. According to the Court, it was also possible to assess the person’s physical conditions in every certain case and determine whether he/she satisfied requirements for performing bailiff’s duties. Consequently, mentioned circumstances excluded the need of releasing bailiffs based on their age. The Court has also determined, that the dispute norm is discriminative, unfairly treating substantially equal persons under and over 50 years of age.
Based on all the above, the Constitutional Court found that the dispute norm violated the right to equality before the law on the one hand, and right to occupy and serve at relevant position in public service on the other.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v.