President and Parliament argue on court reform
By Gvantsa Gabekhadze
Wednesday, February 8
The Committee of Legal Issues in Georgian Parliament rejected the President’s motivated remarks on the third wave of the court reforms.
The hearing at the committee took place after President Giorgi Margvelashvili vetoed the Government bill over the reform about two weeks ago.
Georgian Dream representatives stated that the President's “lacked argumentation.”
The President’s Parliamentary Secretary Anna Dolidze - who presented the remarks in Parliament - and the Movement for Freedom-European Georgia opposition claim the comments were “fully grounded” and adhered to the recommendations of the Venice Commission.
Opposition member Giorgi Tugushi stated that if taken into account, the President's remarks would significantly decrease any influence on the court system.
The President vetoed a package of bills, known as the third wave of the judicial reforms, late January this year.
The President stressed that one of the main reasons he vetoed the bill was the increased power of court chairpersons and the reduced influence of ordinary judges.
Some Georgian Dream representatives stated the President’s decision over the veto was “surprising and inconsistent”, while the President’s administration said there was nothing surprising in the solution.
The majority can override the President’s veto without taking his remarks into account, as the Georgian Dream party holds 115 seats in the 150-member legislative body, in which just 76 votes are needed to override the veto.
The Parliament of Georgia approved the package of bills over the court reforms initiated by the Ministry of Justice with its third and final reading on December 29, 2016.
The bill offered the introduction of an electronic case assignment system from 2018, which was also supported by the President.
It also suggested lifting the obligation of a three-year probationary period for judges before their lifetime appointment. The draft said that acting and former members of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts, who had at least three years of working experience, would not have to take the three-year probationary period. However, all other judges would have to do this.
The draft also said the number of Supreme Court judges should be no less than 16.
The President’s remarks for the veto included:
Court chairpersons should be elected by judges and not be appointed by the High Council of Justice, an independent organ created to co-ordinate the judiciary system and to promote the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary.
One and the same person should no longer be a chairperson of the court and the court’s chamber at the same time.
The three-year probationary terms would not be used if a judge previously fulfilled the condition.
The law should specify the number of the Supreme Court judges.
The Council of Justice Judges should have the opportunity to be represented more solidly, since the court chairperson will no longer be member of the Council.
The rules of collection and dissemination of information about candidates during a competition should be specified.
