Hotline2 405 505

News

Wednesday, 27 August, 2025
Share

Minister of Justice Meets with Romanian Parliamentary Delegation

Georgian Minister of Justice Paata Salia, along with his deputies, held a meeting with the Romanian parliamentary delegation.

The discussion focused on strengthening legal cooperation between the two countries. Minister Salia presented the key areas of the Ministry of Justice’s work to the Romanian guests and highlighted ongoing reforms.

Both sides expressed readiness to further deepen cooperation and explore new opportunities for partnership.

Other News

Share
Print

Strasbourg Court Declares Complaints on Independence and Impartiality of Supreme Court Judges of Georgia Inadmissible

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld the legal position presented by Georgia’s Ministry of Justice and, based on the submitted evidence, declared the complaints in Pirtskhalava and Y v. Georgia and Goginashvili v. Georgia inadmissible.

In these applications, the complainants alleged that one of the judges of the Supreme Court who examined their cases was biased. Additionally, the applicants in Pirtskhalava and Y claimed that Judge Sh.T. had not been appointed in accordance with the law.

The ECHR accepted the arguments of the Ministry of Justice and declared all three complaints regarding judicial impartiality inadmissible. In its decision, the Strasbourg Court reviewed the reforms undertaken by the Georgian authorities since 2012 to improve the justice system. In particular, it highlighted reforms such as: lifetime judicial appointments, improvements in the procedures for the appointment and promotion of judges, strengthening the role and functional independence of the High Council of Justice, and constitutional amendments that further refined the selection and appointment procedures for Supreme Court judges.

It is worth noting that the ongoing legal proceedings against Irakli Pirtskhalava concern the criminal case related to the murder of Buta Robakidze. Pirtskhalava additionally alleged that his criminal trial had been unfair, arguing that he had not been given the opportunity to question his former co-defendants and other witnesses or effectively challenge the evidence. The Strasbourg Court found no indication of a violation of his right to a fair trial and therefore declared his additional complaints inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.