You are on page 1of 2

Coalition Members:

Rules for Judicial Selection and Appointment

The rules for judicial selection and appointment have to be defined at the
statutory level. The law has to provide guarantees for transparency of
judicial selection and appointment process to ensure compliance with the
European standards. According to the recommendations of the Consultative
Council of European Judges, due to the significant role played by the justice
councils in the process of judicial administration, their transparency has to be
guaranteed. Transparency largely determines public trust in the court system
and provides safeguards against political influences, private interests, greed,
and nepotism. All decisions related to judicial appointment, promotion,
evaluation, disciplining or other aspects of a judges career, have to be well
justified. Any interested party shall be able to familiarize himself with the
choices made by the justice council and check whether the council has
considered rules and regulations established for the merit-based process of
judicial appointment and promotion.1
In order to ensure transparency of the judicial selection/appointment, the
following changes have to be made in the Organic law of Georgia on
Common Courts:
1. The law shall guarantee the principles of judicial selection and appointment,
such as transparency, fairness, and objectivity;
2. The law shall define the rules for announcing the competition and
application requirements;
3. The law shall establish a two-stage system for judicial selection: eligibility
check and background check and interview;
4. Judicial selection has to be guided by two major criteria: integrity and
competence, which are defined in accordance with the following

For integrity:

Personal and professional integrity;

Independence, impartiality, and fairness;
Personal and professional conduct;
Personal and professional reputation.

For competence:

Knowledge of law;
Legal reasoning ability and competence;
Writing and verbal communication ability;
Professional qualities;
Academic accomplishment and professional training;
Professional activities.

5. Members of the Council will assess candidates by scoring weighted criteria

and characteristics.

1 Opinion no 10 (2007) of the Consultative Council of European Judges

(CCJE) on the Council for the Judiciary at the Service of Society, paragraphs

Article 42 of the
Multinational Georgia
Georgia Small and
Medium Enterprise
Civil Integration
Georgian Lawyers for
Independent Profession
Center for Protection of
Constitutional Rights
International Society
for Fair Elections and
The Union 21 Century
Georgian Young
Lawyers Association
Human Right Center
Union of Meskhetian
Liberty Institute
Civil Development
United Nations
Association of Georgia
The European Law
Students Association
Civil Society Institute
Open Society Georgia
Institute of Democracy
American Chamber of
Eurasia Partnership
Institute of
Development of
Freedom of Information
Human Rights Priority
Tbilisi Media Club
Human Rights
Education and
Monitoring Centre
Foundation for the
Support of Legal
Institute of Civil
Association of law firms
of Georgia
Association of Young
Economists of Georgia
European Choice of
Liberal Academy
Partnership for Human

Each member of the Council enters scores in the electronic database upon
completion of an interview and provides reasons for each score in writing in
three working days.
Candidates are rated according to the average score calculated by dividing
the total sum of all scores by the number of the Council members. A
candidate shall receive at least 70% of the maximum score for each
6. Candidate interviews and the assessment process, as well as assessment
forms are public;
7. The existing voting procedure for appointing judges is annulled. The
candidates with the highest scores will be appointed from the pool of those
who have passed the 70% threshold.
8. A decision by the High Council of Justice to decline a candidate can be
appealed in the Supreme Court Qualifications Chamber according to the
established procedure. The law shall establish a comprehensive list of
grounds for appeal: a biased approach of a Council member in the process of
the competition; a discriminatory approach of a Council member to a
candidate; abuse of power by a Council member, due to which a judicial
candidates rights were violated or independence of the court was
endangered; information, which served as a ground for a decision, is
essentially false and a candidate is able to provide convincing evidence for
proving wrongfulness of this information; a competition was carried out in
violation of procedures established in the law, thereby essentially affecting
competition results.