The Coalition’s Legislative Proposal on the System of Disciplinary Liability of Judges
The Coalition for an Independent and Transparent
Judiciary submitted legislative proposal to the Parliament of Georgia. The
proposal aims at improvement of the grounds for disciplinary liability of
judges and reforming the institution of an Independent Inspector.
Considering the fact that current disciplinary
proceedings have been numerously criticized by domestic and international
organizations, the coalition proposes several amendments to the
Parliament:
Reform of the Institution of Independent Inspector
- In order to increase
the guarantees of independence of the Independent Inspector, it is important to
amend the procedural rules of appointment/dismissal, as well as the grounds for
dismissal and the rules regulating appeal procedure of the dismissal. We
believe selection and dismissal of the Independent Inspector should be possible
by 2/3 of High Council of Justice (Council) members instead of simple majority.
This will increase the influence of the non-judge members of the Council on an institutional level regarding the appointment/dismissal process of
Independent Inspector;
- The salary of the
Independent Inspector should be defined by the law. In addition, Independent Inspector
should have a right to determine the number of its staff and their salaries;
- In order to avoid
conflict of interest, certain employment restrictions could be introduced for the
Independent Inspector. For instance, after the end of the term a former Inspector
should be prohibited from holding any position at the judicial system for a reasonable
period of time;
- Independent
Inspector should be granted an access to
relevant information (access to certain available electronic databases) in
order to properly investigate the cases of alleged disciplinary violations;
- Legislation should
clearly define that if a criminal offense is detected in the course of the
investigation, Independent Inspector should be able to address the Prosecutor's
Office directly. The consent of the Council in such instances should not be
required;
- Law should establish
the possibility of an Independent Inspector to address the Council with the
recommendation on the launching of disciplinaryproceedings;
- Law should define an obligation
for the Inspector to proactively publish report on own activities every three
months and as well as an annual report summarizing the whole year. The
published information should contain details on the applied grounds of disciplinary
misconducts and information on all decisions made by
the Council based on the requests of an Independent Inspector.
Reform of the Grounds of
Disciplinary Proceedings
- Law should clearly define the goals and scope of
the disciplinary liability. Disciplinary proceedings should apply to graveprofessional violations only and not interpretations of the law or
judicial errors;
- Provisions of the Code of
Ethics, which might cause disciplinary liability, should be clearly
and thoroughly defined in the law;
- Specific standard should clarify what kind of
actions of a judge would qualify as “inappropriate and detrimental to the court
reputation”. Current formulation provided by the law is so general and vague that
it poses a threat to its selective use in practice;
- It should be clarified which norms of the
Georgian Law on “Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Service” are
considered to serve as grounds for disciplinary liability of judges. At
present, the entire law can be used as a basis for disciplinary liability of
judges and this practice creates particular risks of abuse;
- Instances when judge does not inform relevant
authorities about the cases of illegal communication with him/her, should
constitute disciplinary violation under the Article 2 of the Law on
Disciplinary Proceedings.
The
contents of this prerelease are the responsibility of Coalition for
Independent and Transparent Judiciary and do not necessarily reflect the
views of USAID, the United States Government or EWMI
<< Back
30.03.2018