The Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) has prepared a study titled “Assessment of Ongoing Legal Proceedings in Georgian Courts in Light of the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.” Based on an analysis of ECtHR case law, the study examines systemic issues within national legal proceedings that lead to violations of the right to a fair trial and/or other fundamental rights.
The study analyzes 48 cases in which the European Court of Human Rights has found violations of fundamental rights by Georgia since 2004. In the majority of these cases—26% of those where a judgment was delivered—the Court identified a breach of the right to a fair trial. As a result of these rulings, the state was ordered to pay a total of 460,000 euros in compensation to victims, specifically due to its failure to ensure justice.
It is important to note that some of the judges responsible for the violations identified in these cases remain active within the judiciary. Many have even been promoted to high-ranking positions within the system.
The situation is further exacerbated by alarming statistics on the execution of European Court judgments—Georgia ranks fifth from the bottom among Council of Europe member states. Only Malta, Albania, Azerbaijan, and the Russian Federation perform worse in this regard.
Despite numerous reforms, the judiciary in Georgia continues to face serious challenges. These issues are particularly evident in cases related to protests, where administrative sanctions are frequently imposed without proper justification or consideration of the broader context, and the burden of proof is effectively shifted onto the citizen. Judges often rely solely on police testimony, failing to examine the substantive circumstances of the case—an approach that contradicts both national law and the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights.
The study also highlights several other systemic problems, including:
– Lack of reasoning in court decisions – Court rulings are often formulaic and lack individualized reasoning. Judges frequently fail to address the arguments presented by the parties and impose preventive detention or maximum fines without proper justification, in violation of the standards established by the European Court of Human Rights.
– Violation of the principles of equality and adversarial proceedings – This includes providing inadequate explanations to the parties, disregarding their arguments, refusing to examine key evidence, and arbitrarily reclassifying charges during proceedings.
– Prolonged proceedings resulting in human rights violations – The state has an obligation to organize the judiciary in a way that guarantees the right of every citizen to have their case heard within a reasonable time. Delays in adjudication continue to undermine this right.
– Excessive influence of the High Council of Justice – The Council plays a dominant role in the appointment of judges and reportedly uses disciplinary mechanisms to target and punish judges critical of the system.
– Continued service of judges responsible for serious human rights violations – Judges whose decisions have led to significant and high-profile violations of the European Convention on Human Rights remain active in the judiciary, including in senior positions.
In 2021, the Georgian Parliament adopted legislative amendments in an accelerated process, without public participation, which weakened the independence of individual judges and further empowered the High Council of Justice. These changes reinforced internal corporate governance and informal influences within the judiciary.
Despite the deepening crisis of trust in the judicial system—both domestically and internationally—as reflected in sanctions imposed on Georgian judges by several Western countries, the ruling Georgian Dream party continues to resist the creation of a mechanism to assess the integrity of judges.
GYLA’s assessment is that the current state of the judiciary not only endangers the protection of human rights but also undermines Georgia’s ability to meet essential standards for European integration, particularly with regard to the rule of law and judicial accountability.
