Twelve years on: European-style judiciary or clan rule?
Date: 25 October 2024
Georgian Dream claims that, in twelve years, the governing team has built a justice system aligned with European standards. Yet the imposition of sanctions on judges, persistent accusations of clan rule, and the disregard for recommendations from European partners paint a contrasting picture.
One of the key pre-election promises made by Georgian Dream in 2012 was to free the judiciary from political influence and ensure the independence of judges. Twelve years later, the government’s message to voters has evolved. The leadership now claims that Georgian Dream has successfully established a system where state institutions operate professionally and the judiciary meets European standards.
“I am proud that, together with you and with the continued support of the Georgian people, we have built a country over these twelve years where the government serves the people, and all institutions fulfill their responsibilities professionally; a country where every citizen or visitor can live with dignity, regardless of their ethnic or religious background; a country where we have made significant progress in every sector, whether healthcare, social services, the economy, or beyond; a country where law enforcement agencies and the justice system meet European standards,” said Bidzina Ivanishvili, honorary chairman of Georgian Dream, on October 10.
An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of any democratic state and the primary guarantor of the rule of law. It ensures the proper functioning of all institutions and plays a crucial role in securing fair elections. Beyond resolving specific disputes, the judiciary protects the integrity of the electoral process, upholds voters’ will, and safeguards democratic principles.
Today, however, the term “clan rule” is often used to describe Georgia’s judiciary. This criticism comes not only from local organizations but also from Western partners.
What kind of justice system has Georgian Dream created in twelve years?
Multiple organizations focusing on judicial matters have assessed that the Supreme Council remains as opaque today as it was before 2013. The current leadership of the Supreme Council of Justice has effectively barred the monitoring of sessions and restricted access to public information, both proactively and upon request.
Georgian Dream has fully staffed the Supreme Court with its own preferred judges, all of whom hold lifetime appointments. Notably, Nikoloz Marsagishvili was appointed almost a year in advance.
Although the interviews with Supreme Court candidates were broadcast live, concerns about their integrity and qualifications persisted. Observers such as OSCE/ODIHR, the US Embassy, and the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Monitoring Group noted that some candidates lacked sufficient legal expertise and failed to demonstrate due impartiality.
The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Third Interim Report stated that the High Council of Justice’s application, background checks, and interview procedures fell short of international standards. The OSCE also highlighted a lack of political will to address systemic issues in the judiciary, noting only minimal efforts to improve its effectiveness.
In 2015, Levan Murusidze was appointed as a judge of the Court of Appeal on a three-year probationary term. His name is tied to several high-profile cases, including the murder of Sandro Girgvliani in 2006. In this case, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg partially upheld the Girgvliani family’s claim, concluding that the investigation into his death “clearly lacked the necessary independence, impartiality, objectivity, and thoroughness.”
The European Court expressed “surprise” that neither the prosecution nor the local courts attempted to uncover key facts in the case.
On April 5, 2023, the United States imposed sanctions on Levan Murusidze, the judge in the Girgvliani case, for “abuse of public office” and “involvement in significant corrupt activities.” Two current judges, Mikheil Chinchaladze and Irakli Shengelia, along with former judge Valerian Tsertsvadze, were also sanctioned.
All three sitting judges sanctioned by the US State Department for “significant corruption” hold lifetime appointments and can serve until the age of sixty-five. Levan Murusidze is eligible to serve until 2040, Irakli Shengelia until 2041, and Mikheil Chinchaladze until 2043.
Notably, Levan Murusidze returned to the High Council of Justice for a second term on October 23, 2022. Alongside him, Dimitri Gvritishvili, considered an influential figure in the so-called “court clan,” also serves on the Council. Their reappointments were backed by an overwhelming majority at the Conference of Judges.
According to the watchdog organization Georgian Court Watch, in a judiciary where over one hundred positions remain vacant, even the notion of competitive appointments has become futile. Interest in becoming a judge in Georgia appears to be steadily declining.
Georgia’s Association of Young Lawyers has assessed that the Supreme Council of Justice includes three mechanisms that allow the so-called “Judicial Clan” to control the system:
• A nepotistic system of appointing judges;
• The appointment of court chairpersons driven by personal interests;
• Disciplinary proceedings used to punish judges who act independently.
What does the European standard mean?
Following the granting of European Union candidate status to Georgia, the European Commission added a new component to its recommendations concerning the judiciary. Georgian authorities were tasked with assessing the integrity of certain judges. To facilitate this process, a system must be established that allows international experts to evaluate judicial conduct.
In the European Union, this process is known as “vetting.” This integrity verification mechanism should be temporary and applied only to judges holding significant positions within the judicial system.
However, the government has expressed its intention not to implement this recommendation. Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze has deemed vetting unacceptable, arguing that it “contradicts the Constitution.”
“We have judges appointed for life, whom no one can remove until they reach the age limit. Any initiative that contradicts the principle of a judge’s lifetime appointment inherently conflicts with the Constitution,” Kobakhidze stated.
POLITICAL ANALYSIS
A well-functioning state depends on the strength of its independent institutions, which uphold democracy, ensure accountability, and safeguard citizens’ rights. Among the most essential of these are the judiciary, electoral commissions, media, anti-corruption agencies, and central banks. The judiciary guarantees the rule of law by preventing abuses of power and ensuring the fair enforcement of laws. Electoral commissions certify the trustworthiness of election results, a cornerstone of democratic governance. A free press acts as a watchdog, holding leaders accountable and ensuring public access to unbiased information. Anti-corruption agencies help maintain government integrity by preventing the misuse of public resources. Central banks stabilize the economy through independent monetary policies, fostering economic confidence and sustainability. When these institutions lose their independence, states become susceptible to authoritarianism, corruption, and a collapse in public trust.
Among these institutions, the judiciary plays a pivotal role, serving as a pillar of democracy. An independent court system ensures that the rule of law is upheld, individual rights are protected, and equality before the law is enforced. It guarantees that both public officials and private citizens are held accountable, while also curbing overreach by the executive and legislature. Courts provide essential checks on power by reviewing government actions, safeguarding civil liberties, and ensuring that laws conform to constitutional principles. When free from political interference, the judiciary cultivates trust in the legal system, which reinforces social stability and encourages investment by assuring both citizens and businesses that the law will be applied impartially.
Authoritarian regimes, however, actively work to dismantle institutional independence in order to consolidate power. Their primary target is often the judiciary, as an impartial legal system can overturn arbitrary decisions, prosecute corruption, or block unconstitutional actions. To avoid these constraints, authoritarian governments weaken courts by appointing loyalists, altering legal frameworks, or intimidating judges into compliance.
Several European countries have recently experienced democratic erosion, with governments asserting control over institutions intended to remain independent. Since 2010, Viktor Orbán’s Hungarian government has gradually undermined the independence of the judiciary, media, and electoral systems. A new body, the National Judicial Office (NJO), was created to manage the courts, with its head given the authority to appoint and promote judges, circumventing existing checks. The sudden lowering of the judiciary’s retirement age also forced experienced judges to step down, allowing the government to fill these positions with loyal appointees.
Similarly, in Poland, the Law and Justice Party (PiS) has implemented reforms since 2015 that dismantled judicial independence, drawing criticism from the European Union for undermining the rule of law. PiS targeted the Constitutional Tribunal, which oversees the legality of legislation, by appointing loyal judges and giving the executive control over judicial appointments. The government also introduced disciplinary mechanisms to pressure judges who challenged its policies. Reforms to the Supreme Court further lowered the retirement age of judges, enabling the government to remove and replace key judicial figures.
Turkey offers another example, where President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has systematically dismantled independent institutions, especially following the failed coup attempt of 2016. Under the pretext of a state of emergency, Erdoğan’s government purged tens of thousands of judges, prosecutors, academics, and civil servants, replacing many of them with loyalists. The judiciary was transformed into a tool of the regime, used to suppress opposition and dissent, consolidating the ruling party’s grip on power.
As authoritarianism becomes increasingly transnational, regimes learn from one another, and the Georgian Dream government has similarly undermined the independence of the judiciary to consolidate its control. Key judicial appointments have favored individuals aligned with the ruling party, raising serious concerns about political interference. A small group of powerful judges, known as the “judicial clan,” has been empowered to exert significant influence over court decisions and appointments. Attempts to reform the High Council of Justice, responsible for overseeing judicial conduct, have been either stalled or merely cosmetic, allowing political interests to shape the judiciary. Moreover, cases involving opposition leaders, activists, and independent media have often been handled in a biased manner, indicating that the judiciary is being used as a tool to silence dissent and safeguard government interests.
The Georgian Dream government employs these tactics to maintain power by neutralizing opposition voices and controlling key institutions that could challenge its authority. By ensuring the loyalty of the judiciary, the government avoids legal scrutiny of its actions and creates a protective shield against political accountability, thus prolonging its rule while maintaining a semblance of legitimacy.
By capturing the judiciary, regimes like these eliminate checks on their authority, using the courts to legitimize policies that restrict fundamental freedoms. When independent institutions are compromised, public trust deteriorates and democratic principles are gradually dismantled. Courts under authoritarian control are often repurposed to justify political repression, punish opponents, and silence critical voices, all while maintaining an illusion of legality.
In sum, a good state is not only defined by the laws it enacts but by the impartial enforcement of those laws through independent institutions. The judiciary, in particular, is vital to democracy, as it ensures the rule of law and prevents the concentration of power. In contrast, authoritarian regimes thrive by undermining these institutions—especially the courts—as part of a strategy to consolidate control. The defense of judicial independence is, therefore, essential to the preservation of democratic governance.