Ministry of Justice: The Strasbourg Court declared inadmissible the complaints filed regarding the independence and impartiality of Supreme Court judges of Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights upheld the legal position of the Ministry of Justice, supported by relevant evidence, and declared inadmissible the complaints in the cases of “Pirtskhalava and Y. v. Georgia” and “Goginashvili v. Georgia.” The Ministry of Justice released a statement on the matter.
According to the information provided, the Strasbourg Court accepted the argument of the Ministry of Justice and declared all three complaints regarding the impartiality of a judge inadmissible.
“In these complaints, the applicants argued that one of the judges who reviewed their cases in the Supreme Court was biased. In addition, according to Pirtskhalava and Y., judge Sh.T. had not been appointed in accordance with the law.
The European Court of Human Rights accepted the argument of the Ministry of Justice and declared all three complaints regarding the impartiality of the judge inadmissible. In its decision, the Strasbourg Court examined the reforms implemented by the Government of Georgia since 2012 with the aim of strengthening the judiciary. In particular, attention was focused on issues such as: lifetime appointment of judges; refinement of the procedures for the appointment and promotion of judges; strengthening the role and functional independence of the High Council of Justice; and the constitutional amendment that further improved the procedure for selecting and appointing judges of the Supreme Court.
It should be noted that the ongoing legal proceedings against Irakli Pirtskhalava were related to the criminal case concerning the murder of Butha Robakidze. Pirtskhalava also claimed that his criminal trial was unfair because he was not given the opportunity to question former co-defendants and other witnesses and effectively challenge the evidence. Regarding this matter, the Strasbourg Court determined that not even indications of a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial had been revealed. Accordingly, Pirtskhalava’s additional complaints were declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded,” the statement reads.
