By its ruling of March 7, the Plenum of the Constitutional Court of Georgia partially granted the Public Defender's constitutional lawsuit No. 1700, which disputed the constitutionality of the rules for transferring judges of common courts to other courts, the lack of procedural guarantees when appealing a decision to recuse a judge from a case, and the restriction of judges’ freedom of expression. The plaintiffs in the case, along with the Public Defender, were judges of common courts.

The court did not grant the main part of the appealed issues, which, according to the plaintiff, violate the principle of independence and impartiality of judges and are of fundamental importance for the proper functioning of the justice system (the dissent of Judge Teimuraz Tughushi and Giorgi Kverenchkhiladze is attached).

The court, citing hypothetical and general needs, did not grant the part concerning the authority of the High Council of Justice to transfer a judge to another court (including from the Court of Appeal to the City Court) without his/her consent, for a period of up to three years.

According to the Constitutional Court, the decision to transfer a judge without his/her consent by a body with similar legitimacy and independence as the High Council of Justice, the direct constitutional obligation of which is to ensure the independence and efficiency of the court, significantly reduces the indicated risks. In addition, legislation contains various guarantees that insure the risks of abusing the institution of transfer of judges to other courts without their consent. According to the Court, the High Council of Justice is obliged to justify why a specific judge was selected for the transfer, what led to the determination of a specific term for the transfer and/or why the judge's transfer became necessary.

The Court also did not satisfy the part of the lawsuit that concerned the restriction of judges’ freedom of expression. According to the Constitutional Court, the legislator does not completely prohibit judges’ freedom of political expression. Judges have the freedom to express their views, including on issues that are directly or indirectly related to politics, provided that they adhere to the principle of political neutrality and/or do not clearly violate it.

The Public Defender also challenged the norms that, on the one hand, declared inadmissible the extension of the deadline for appealing a decision to recuse a judge from a cases to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court in the event of a proper reason, and, on the other hand, allowed the consideration of the appeal without an oral hearing and/or in the absence of the parties, regardless of whether the subject of the assessment was a formal legal issue or a factual circumstance. The Constitutional Court granted the lawsuit in this part and explained that the blanket ban on extending the 10-day appeal period against the decision of the Disciplinary Collegium of Judges to recuse a judge from a case, which applies, inter alia, to cases where the judge has missed this period for a justified reason, does not establish a fair balance between the restricted and protected interests. In addition, paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Constitution of Georgia requires that, if an interested person wishes so, legislation shall ensure that the issue is considered by holding an oral hearing and with the participation of the parties.

The ruling of the Constitutional Court is available at: https://constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=17644