Coalition for Independent and Transparent Judiciary is outraged by amendmentsadopted by the Parliament of Georgia related to the work of the Constitutional Court of Georgia. We believe this step is aimed against not only the present composition of the Constitutional Court and/or specific judges, but at paralyzing of the Constitutional Court as such and diminishing its crucial role, which threatens such fundamental values essential for a democratic state as: the rule of law, recognition and protection of human rights, separation of powers, and proper, efficient and unbiased application of constitutional justice.
The process of adoption of the amendments
It must be noted that the Parliament adopted these amendments within particularly shortened timeframe, and the process was closed and nontransparent. Specifically, the amendmentswere not publicly accessible before the committee meeting, which made any discussion and expression of positions on this issue of vital public interest impossible.
At the same time, on 11 May 2016, after their visit to Georgia, Georgia co-rapporteursKerstin Lundgren (Sweden) and Boris Cilevics (Latvia) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued statement, that they “have welcomed the intention of the Chairperson of the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee of the Georgian Parliament to send the proposed amendments to the laws governing the Constitutional Court to the Venice Commission for opinion, before they are discussed in second reading in the parliament.”
The Parliament not only broke this promise, but just several hours after adopting the draft amendments in the second hearing (after working hours strictly defined by the Parliament’s rules of procedure)the Committee adopted the amendment in the third hearing as well, which was then finally confirmed at the plenary session.
It is also important to note that initiating and then adopting this draft law constituted the government’s response to the rulings of the Constitutional Court aimed at protecting human rights but unfavorable in the government’s view. Besides, before this legislative process there were instances of violations of law against members of the Constitutional Court, which were not met by any meaningful response from the government.
Problematic issues
The amendment threatens:
Timely rulings by the plenum (full panel) of the Constitutional Court - The Court plenum has powers if at least 7 judges out of 9 are present, while a ruling (including the one concerning suspension of a legal norm) comes into forceif supported by 2/3 of the full panel. Establishment of such high quorum for rulings is inconsistent with international standards, including assessments of the Venice Commission, and will probably cause the Constitutional Court to be paralyzed.
Proper functioning of the panel (collegium) of 4 judges - Any judge in the panel disagreeing with the ruling of the majority is now able to demand transfer of the case to the plenum, which threatens the ability of the panel to adopt rulings in a timely and efficient manner.
Rulings on specific cases - According to the amendments, any dispute concerning constitutionality of an organic law from the point of view of human rights must be reviewed by the plenum, with the abovementioned quorum. Such cases include disputes involving election law, legislation on functioning of the Constitutional Court itself, and many important issues including suspension of legal norms, which require timely and efficient action by the Court.
Interests and rights of the parties of judicial proceedings- After a member of the Court serves for 10 years, he or she automatically ceases to exercise his/her duty, which means that cases deliberated upon by the previous composition of the Court must return to their early stages, which – considering the specifics of constitutional justice – will seriously damage interests of parties of any given judicial proceeding.This can also cause an overload of the Court, since its newly appointed judges will have to review the cases already deliberated upon, in addition to the new cases.
With all of the issues discussed in this statement in mind, we believe that the amendments in questionresolutely violate fundamental principles of a democratic state and threaten the democratic development of Georgia at large.Their very purpose is to undermine the legal authority of the Constitutional Court, reduce its efficiency through intentional complication of procedures and lead to its actual paralysis.
Members of Coalition:
1. Article 42 of the Constitution
2. Multinational Georgia
3. Georgia Small and Medium Business Association
4. Civil Integration Foundation
5. Georgian Lawyers for Independent Profession
6. Business and Economic Center
7. Liberal
8. Center for Protection of Constitutional Rights
9. International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy
10. The Union “21 Century”
11. Georgian Young Lawyers Association
12. Human Rights Center
13. Transparency International Georgia
14. Union of Meskhetian Democrats
15. Liberty Institute
16. Civil Development Agency
17. United Nations Association of Georgia
18. The European Law Students’ Association Georgia
19. Civil Society Institute
20. Open Society Georgia Foundation Georgia
21. Institute of Democracy
22. American Chamber of Commerce
23. Institute of Development of Freedom of Information
24. Tbilisi Media Club
25. Human Rights Priority
26. Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center
27. Foundation for the Support of Legal Education
28. Institute of Civil Engagement
29. Association of Law Firms of Georgia
30. Association of Young Economists of Georgia
31. Eurasia Partnership Foundation
32. European Choice of Georgia
33. Partnership for Human Rights
34. Human Right Network
35. Georgian Democracy Initiative
36. Sapari Union
