Constitutional Court Judges in Public Row over High-Profile Cases

Nine members of the Constitutional Court seen during a session in October, 2015.

Tensions between members of 9-seat Constitutional Court spilled over into a public spat after five judges accused the Court chairman of trying to speed up decisions into politically charged cases and not giving judges reasonable time to properly consider those high-profile cases.

Other members of the court dismissed the allegation in a written statement as “groundless” and “incomprehensible.”
 
The row comes about a week after Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Giorgi Papuashvili, said at a news conference on July 21 that “some of the judges” of Court were “pressured” and “blackmailed” to either rule in favor of the authorities or drag out verdicts in several high-profile cases.

No details of this allegation are publicly available. Prosecutor’s Office is investigating the case and several judges have been interviewed by the investigators, but none of them has yet publicly stated about being a target of alleged pressure; Papuashvili himself appears to be reluctant to be interviewed by the investigators.

A joint letter of five judges, addressed to the Constitutional Court chairman, was circulated in the Georgian media outlets on July 29. The letter was signed by judges Merab Turava; Zaza Tavadze; Lali Papiashvili; Tamaz Tsabutashvili, and Otar Sichinava.

“It is inadmissible when Court’s agenda is determined unilaterally by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court without taking into consideration opinion of other members of the Court and when it is done in a way to speed up consideration of certain cases, specifically those which contain political context and especially in the condition when cases, which were lodged significantly earlier (but having no political nature) are waiting for quite some time for their turn to be considered/decided by the Court,” reads the statement. “Judges should have reasonable time to thoroughly study the case in order to take decision without haste in a calm atmosphere.”
 
These cases of “political nature” are complaints filed by the Rustavi 2 TV, as well as by ex-mayor of Tbilisi and one of the leaders of opposition UNM party Gigi Ugulava, who was sentenced to jail on misspending charges, and former MoD officials, who were sentenced in so called “cable case” to prison over misspending charges; the latter case is associated with the Free Democrats opposition party.

Although filed separately, the complaints by Ugulava and the “cable case” defendants are adjudicated by the Constitutional Court as a single case because both of them challenge a clause of the criminal code dealing with “misspending” charges, arguing that the clause is too vague creating risk of its abuse for political reasons by the prosecution. 

Rustavi 2 TV’s complaints stem from its ongoing court battle with its former co-owner Kibar Khalvashi, who tries to regain control over this Tbilisi-based opposition-minded television channel. The TV channel, which claims that former owner’s lawsuit to regain the broadcaster is orchestrated by the government with the aim to seize the channel, lost the battle in the court of first instance and also in the appellate court and took the case to the Supreme Court; in parallel, through a complaint with the Constitutional Court, the Rustavi 2 TV challenges legislative clauses based on which Khalvashi tries to regain ownership of the broadcaster.
  
In their the five judges have called to decide on politically charged high-profile cases only after the investigative body determines veracity of allegations voiced by the Constitutional Court chairman on July 21. Otherwise, they suggest, any decision on these cases may cause question marks over judges’ impartiality.

When commenting on the allegations, the Constitutional Court chairman, Giorgi Papuashvili, told journalists on July 29 that “this kind of a separatist statement” of his five colleagues was “a misunderstanding.”

“I think that we will overcome this misunderstanding and continue performing our functions normally,” he said, adding that it has always been the Court’s practice to prioritize those cases, which are related to fundamental rights and freedom of speech.

“Our work should be based solely on law and Constitution, instead on whims, procedures and deadlines of prosecutor’s office or of anyone else,” he said, referring to the five judges’ call to delay decisions into high-profile cases before the prosecutor’s office completes its ongoing investigation into alleged pressure on the Court.

On July 30 three judges of the Constitutional Court – Konstantine Vardzelashvili; Ketevan Eremadze, and Maia Kopaleishvili released a written statement responding to their five colleagues’ letter.

“The Court is no stranger to differences between the judges, which has often been reflected in the Court’s decisions. But the dispute between the judges through media sources has never happened before… Debate between judges with the use of media outlets diminishes dignity of a judge and damages reputation of the Court. It is regrettable that our colleagues put us before such undesirable choice,” reads the statement of three judges, which was posted on the Constitutional Court’s website.

They dismissed as “groundless” the allegations against the Court chair that he tries to speed up decisions on the politically-charged cases, noting that the complaints lodged by the Rustavi 2 TV have been under consideration in the Court since October, 2015. The case was initially heard by a panel of four judges, but when the panel concluded the process, the case was referred to the full bench of 9 judges in June upon the motion of judge Merab Turava, who joined the Court last year – the move was criticized by the Rustavi 2 TV and some opposition parties as an attempt to drag out the process. A single judge in a panel was given the right to request referral of case to the plenary session of full bench as a result of legislative amendments passed by the Parliament earlier in June.
 
The three judges also said that the Court’s past practice shows that the sequence in which cases are heard has never followed strictly the order by which the complaints were lodged.

“It is one of the criteria, but not the only one. Priority has always been given to the cases related to human rights, right to life and health, especially in the circumstances, when delay in decision would have made the verdict ineffective in terms of protecting the rights,” reads the statement.

When commenting on the recent developments related to the Constitutional Court, Parliament Speaker, Davit Usupashvili, said, without taking sides, that the Court appears to be embroiled in “the epicenter of political processes.”

“I think that it’s safe to say that the Constitutional Court is in crisis,” Usupashvili said in an interview with the Tbilisi-based Imedi TV station on July 29.

He said that appointment of new judges, who would replace those whose term in office expires in couple of months, should help improve the situation.

Four judges whose ten-year term in the Constitutional Court expires in late September are: Giorgi Papuashvili; Konstantine Vardzelashvili; Ketevan Eremadze, and Otar Sichinava.

Two of the four seats, which will become vacant in the Constitutional Court in late September, should be filled by new judges appointed by President Giorgi Margvelashvili; one has to be appointed by the Parliament and the fourth vacant seat will be filled by a new judge appointed by the Supreme Court.

Many senior figures from the GDDG ruling party have long been accusing some members of the Constitutional Court, including its chairman, who were appointed when now opposition UNM party was in power, of being loyal to formerly ruling party.

A senior GDDG lawmaker, Gia Volski, said after the Constitutional Court chairman voiced allegations over pressure, that Papuashvili was “receiving orders from Odessa” – a reference to Georgia’s ex-President Mikheil Saakashvili, who is now governor of Ukraine’s Odessa region.

Salome Samadashvili, who is UNM’s MP candidate in the upcoming elections, said that the government has long been trying to gain control over the Constitutional Court and the joint letter of five judges in which they call for delay in decisions on high-profile cases, puts a question mark over the Constitutional Court’s independence.