DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF JUDGES OF COMMON COURTS OF GEORGIA
Decision of Disciplinary Committee #1/01-12, August 2, 2012
Disciplinary Committee Of Judges Of Common Courts Of Georgia
D E C I S I O N
Case No1/01-12 August 2nd, 2012
Tbilisi
Disciplinary Committee Of Judges
Of Common Courts Of Georgia
comprised of:
Chairman: Lasha Kalandadze
Members: Mamia Pkhakadze
Giorgi Shavliashvili
Secretary: Irakli Gvaramadze
The parties:
Representative of the High Council of Justice of Georgia __________ __________;
Judge of the __________ __________ Court __________ __________;
Has tried the disciplinary case against the judge of the __________ __________ Court __________ __________ in a closed hearing and
F O U N D:
Based on the complaint by the citizen __________ __________ (registration number No____), the High Council of Justice of Georgia has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the judge of the __________ __________ Court __________ __________ .
As per the decision of the High Council of Justice of Georgia, judge __________ __________ has been subjected to disciplinary responsibility for the commission of misconduct – Improper Fulfillment of Judicial Duties, foreseen by the subparagraph “f” under the paragraph 2 of the article 2 of the Law of Georgia on “Disciplinary Responsibility And Disciplinary Proceedings Of Judges Of Common Courts Of Georgia”.
Imposition of disciplinary responsibility on the judge was based on the following circumstances:
On June 4th 2009 the representative __________ __________ of __________ __________ has filed a motion with the __________ __________ Court requesting entry of a correction into the decision of April 24th 2000 by the Isani-Samgori District Court and issuance of a writ in accordance to the correction of the decision. The motion has been assigned to the judge __________ __________ A complaint by __________ __________ against __________ __________ has been pending with the judge at the same time, where the attorney was requesting clarification of the motion of June 4th 2009. It has been clarified on January 27th 2010.
In relation to the motion of June 4th 2009 the case has been requested from the archives of the Common Courts Department of the High Council of Justice of Georgia by the assistant to the judge __________ __________ The aforementioned case has been received by the __________ __________ Court on June 15th 2009.
The judge discussed the aforementioned issues only on October 3rd 2011 and denied in part the motion by __________ __________ on the entry of a correction into the decision of April 24th 2000 by the Isani-Samgori Regional Court through the judgment of October 3rd 2011 (each request handled through a separate judgment) and granted in part as to the reference in the writ to the legal successor of the debtor.
As a result of the request of the case and upon its receipt by the __________ __________ Court (on June 15th 2009) prior to the review of the motion (October 3rd 2011), the case was pending with the judge __________ __________ (2 years, 3 months and 21 days) during which time it has never been reviewed.
The representative __________ __________ of __________ __________ has filed similar motions with the __________ __________ Court (judge __________ __________) on January 27th and March 23rd 2010 and February 24th and September 29th 2011 on which no response has taken place until October 3rd 2011.
During the hearing of the given civil case, the judge __________ __________ has reviewed the motion on the entry of a correction into the decision after 2 years, 3 months and 21 days, which does not represent a reasonable period of time. Further, the judge __________ __________ has not taken into consideration the requirements determined by the Georgian legislation and did not argue on the motion with regard to the issuance of the writ in compliance with the rules established by the law. In the given case, the judge had the duty to review the motion within 3 days.
During the trial of the disciplinary case at the hearing of Disciplinary Committee, the representative of the High Council of Justice of Georgia __________ __________ fully supported the disciplinary charges and moved to find the fact of commission of a disciplinary misconduct by the judges __________ __________ and __________ __________ as established.
Disciplinary Committee of judges of common courts of Georgia has reviewed the disciplinary case, examined the materials of the aforementioned case, heard the disciplinary prosecution, found the factual part of the charges established and held that the following facts of law shall be taken into consideration:
Pursuant to the article 53 of the Law of Georgia on “Disciplinary Responsibility And Disciplinary Proceedings Of Judges Of Common Courts Of Georgia”, the Disciplinary Committee shall make the decision on finding a judge guilty of the commission of a disciplinary misconduct and on the imposition of disciplinary responsibility and relevant sanction, if as a result of the trial of the case with the Disciplinary Committee it has been established, that the judge has faultily committed one or more misconducts foreseen by this law, which in itself obliges the Disciplinary Committee to establish the entirety of circumstances foreseen by the article 45 of this law, namely “…whether the judge has committed an action he/she was charged with in accordance to this law, whether this action represents misconduct and whether the judge is faulty of the commission of the disciplinary misconduct”.
Based on the aforementioned, a basis for the imposition of disciplinary responsibility shall be the obligation to establish culpability of the judge in committing a disciplinary misconduct. That is, in order to establish culpability, all objective circumstances shall be taken into consideration, that have conditioned commission of the specific act found disciplinary misconduct.
- Pursuant to the section one of the article 260 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia, “the court may upon request of a party or upon its own initiative correct inconsistencies or obvious arithmetical errors made in the decision. If the court deems proper, the issue of the entry of corrections may be resolved in a court hearing. The parties shall be notified of the date and place of the hearing but the failure to appear shall not impede review of the issue of the entry of a correction into the decision.”
Disciplinary Committee clarifies that the Georgian procedural legislation does not clearly establish the procedural term for the review of the motion on the correction of inconsistencies or of obvious arithmetical errors made in the decision. In the given case, the court trying the case should have reviewed the motion within a reasonable period of time, which is subject to evaluation and shall be dependent on the circumstances of a specific case. Further, the aforementioned period shall not exceed the term of trial of the case established by the law.
Disciplinary Committee found established that the judge __________ __________ has failed to review the motion within a reasonable period of time, which represents a disciplinary misconduct - Improper Fulfillment of Judicial Duties foreseen by the subparagraph “f” of the paragraph 2 of the article 2 under the Law of Georgia on “Disciplinary Responsibility And Disciplinary Proceedings Of Judges Of Common Courts Of Georgia”.
- Pursuant to the article 267 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia, “Forced enforcement of a decision shall be admissible only after entry of the decision into legal force”.
In accordance to the section two of the article 21 of the Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings, “the writ shall be submitted to the creditor by the body making the decision after the entry of the decision into legal force, save cases of immediate enforcement determined by the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia, when the writ shall be issued immediately upon issuance of the decision”.
Pursuant to the aforementioned provisions, the decision shall be enforced after its entry into legal force based on the writ issued by the court. Preparation and submission of the writ shall occur in accordance to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia and the Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings upon request of the party.
In accordance to the article 103 of the Presidential Decree No. 466 of October 27th 2000 on the Approval of the Regulations on “Organized Operation and Case Management Rules of the Regional (City), District Courts and Superior Courts of the Autonomous Republics of Abkhazia and Adjara”, “initiation of the enforcement of the court sentences, decisions, judgments and rulings shall occur after their entry into legal force, save cases of immediate enforcement. The issuance of a writ shall occur no later than 3 days upon request by an interested party”.
Disciplinary Committee found that the judge __________ __________ neglected the requirements established under the Georgian legislation, namely: the judge had the duty to review the motion to issue a writ within 3 days, which he failed to fulfill. This represents a disciplinary misconduct - Improper Fulfillment of Judicial Duties foreseen by the subparagraph “f” of the paragraph 2 of the article 2 under the Law of Georgia on “Disciplinary Responsibility And Disciplinary Proceedings Of Judges Of Common Courts Of Georgia”.
In selecting the disciplinary sanction, Disciplinary Committee has taken into consideration the professional and moral reputation of the judge, has taken into account the nature, gravity, implications and the number of misconducts and held that the judge __________ __________ of the __________ __________ Court shall be imposed disciplinary responsibility and the sanction – Reprimand.
Guided by the article 45, 47, subparagraph “c” of the paragraph one of the article 48, articles 29, 53 and 57 of the Law of Georgia on “Disciplinary Responsibility And Disciplinary Proceedings Of Judges Of Common Courts Of Georgia”, Disciplinary Committee of judges of common courts of Georgia
H E L D:
1. The judge __________ __________ of the __________ __________ Court shall be found faulty of the commission of disciplinary misconduct - Improper Fulfillment of Judicial Duties foreseen by the subparagraph “f” of the paragraph 2 of the article 2 under the Law of Georgia on “Disciplinary Responsibility And Disciplinary Proceedings Of Judges Of Common Courts Of Georgia” and shall be imposed disciplinary responsibility and the sanction – Reprimand;
2. The copies of the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of judges of common courts of Georgia shall be submitted to the persons and bodies determined by the law;
3. The decision may be appealed with the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia within 10 days upon its submission through the Disciplinary Committee of judges of common courts of Georgia.
Chairman: Lasha Kalandadze
Members: Mamia Pkhakadze
Giorgi Shavliashvili
