European Court of Human Rights declares complaints against judges of Supreme Court of Georgia inadmissible

The European Court of Human Rights on Thursday declared inadmissible the complaints submitted regarding the independence and impartiality of the judges of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

The Court upheld the legal position of the Ministry of Justice, supported by relevant evidence, and rejected the complaints in the cases Pirtskhalava and Y against Georgia and Goginashvili against Georgia.

In these complaints, the applicants alleged that one of the Supreme Court judges who examined their cases was biased. Additionally, Pirtskhalava and Y argued that the Judge had not been appointed in accordance with the law.

The European Court accepted the Ministry of Justice’s arguments and declared all three complaints concerning judicial impartiality inadmissible. In its decision, the Court reviewed the reforms undertaken by the Georgian authorities since 2012 to strengthen the justice system.

Among other issues, the Court highlighted: lifetime judicial appointments; improvements to the procedures for appointing and promoting judges; the strengthening of the role and functional independence of the High Council of Justice, and a constitutional amendment that further refined the procedures for selecting and appointing Supreme Court judges.

It is noteworthy that the criminal proceedings against Irakli Pirtskhalava concerned the case related to the killing of Buta Robakidze.

Pirtskhalava additionally claimed that his criminal trial had been unfair, arguing that he was not given the opportunity to question former co-defendants and other witnesses or to effectively challenge the evidence.

The Court found that there were not even indications of a violation of his right to a fair trial. Consequently, it declared his additional complaints inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.