The abstract of the judgment (The judgment is available only in Georgian). Abstracts published by the Constitutional Court of Georgia summarise the facts of the case and key legal considerations of the judgment.

Abstract

On 16 November, 2017, the Constitutional Court of Georgia adopted the Judgement in the case of “Citizen of Georgia Omar Jorbenadze v. The Parliament of Georgia” (constitutional complaint №658).

Bringing the constitutional complaint, the complainant requested declaration of unconstitutionality of the Law of Georgia on Disciplinary Liability of Judges of the Common Courts of Georgia and Disciplinary Proceedings with regard to Article 29 of the Constitution of Georgia.

The complainant pointed out, that under Article 86(2) of the Constitution of Georgia, the Constitution and organic law should regulate dismissal of a judge from the occupied position. The disciplinary liability of a judge may lead to their dismissal from the occupied position, whereas the issues related to disciplinary liability are regulated by the ordinary law; in view of its legal form, this regulation does not meet the formal requirements of the Constitution.

The respondent asserted that the disputed Law regulates procedural issues of imposition of disciplinary liability on judges. However, grounds and rules for dismissal of a judge from the occupied position is set forth in the Organic Law of Georgia on Common Courts. Therefore, the formal requirements of the Constitution of Georgia are met.

The Constitutional Court interpreted, that the conditions of taking and holding of the office of judge should be in compliance with the requirements of Article 29 of the Constitution. This entails obligation of the State to not only adhere to the principle of proportionality in restriction of the right to hold a public office, but also to adhere to all the formal requirements as they are stipulated in the Constitution.

Based on the systemic analysis of the Constitution, the Court ascertained, that the rule of dismissal of a judge from the occupied position prescribed in Article 86(2) of the Constitution of Georgia involves all those procedural rules together, which are applied in the process of the named decision-making. The above-mentioned constitutional provision provides a formal requirement, that such procedural issues be regulated under the organic law.

Based on the analysis of relevant rules of the disputed legal act, the Court ascertained, that the disciplinary proceedings might end up in any outcome, including the dismissal of a judge from the occupied position. Therefore, any procedure set forth in the disputed Law, which is related to disciplinary proceedings, presents a procedure stipulated for dismissal of a judge from the occupied position and their regulation in the form of an ordinary law contradicts the formal requirement established by the Constitution of Georgia.

In view of all the above-mentioned, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the Chapters II, III and V of the disputed Law, which prescribe procedures of disciplinary proceedings. The Court decided, that these rules did not comply with Article 29 of the Constitution from the formal perspective.

The Constitutional Court took into account, that in case of invalidation of the disputed provisions upon publication of the Judgement of the Constitutional Court it would be impossible to carry out disciplinary proceedings against judges, which the complainant did not applied for and was not the goal of declaration of unconstitutionality of the disputed provisions by the Constitutional Court either. Therefore, the Constitutional Court decided, that the legislator should be given a reasonable time, so that it could regulate the procedure for dismissal of a judge according to the requirements of the Constitution. In view of this, the disputed provisions were invalidated from 1 May, 2018.