Hotline2 405 505

News

Thursday, 27 November, 2025
Share

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.

Other News

Share
Print

The Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court Delivers a Judgement on the Cases of the June 20-21, 2019 Demonstrations

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case Tsaava and Others v. Georgia at a public hearing today, 11 December 2025. The case concerns the demonstrations of 20–21 June 2019 and the use of special means to disperse the protesters.

In its judgment, the Grand Chamber reaffirmed that the state has the legitimate right to resort to special means in situations involving attacks or assaults on law enforcement officers and state institutions. The Court also noted that the escalation of the June 20 events and the assault on the Parliament building were encouraged by opposition politicians.

The Court held that the use of force and special means should have been directed exclusively at demonstrators who engaged in violent actions. As the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs at the time failed to ensure adherence to this standard and did not guarantee the proportional use of force, the Court found a violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment), 10 (freedom of expression), and 11 (freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Grand Chamber further noted that the Government of Georgia fully cooperated with the Court during the proceedings and provided all necessary information and materials. Consequently, the applicants’ complaint alleging a lack of cooperation was dismissed. The Court did not find it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

Following the shortcomings identified in the Chamber’s judgment of 7 May 2024, the government initiated an investigation into the planning and execution of the MIA operation to determine its compliance with the standards established by the European Court.

As a result of this investigation, on 12 November 2025, the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia initiated criminal proceedings against the former Minister of Internal Affairs, Giorgi Gakharia. The investigation is ongoing.