Communicated on 13 October 2015
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 7607/07
Merab TURAVA and others against Georgia
and 1 other application
(see list appended)
1. The applicants are all Georgian nationals. They are represented before the Court by Dr. A. Weber, a lawyer practising in Osnabrück, Germany.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicants were acting judges of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
4. On 19 September 2005 the High Council of Judiciary launched, on account of a complaint addressed by the President of the Supreme Court, under Section 6 § 2 of the Act on Disciplinary Liability of Judges, disciplinary proceedings against the applicants for multiple episodes of miscarriage of justice allegedly committed in various unconnected sets of criminal proceedings.
5. By a decision of 12 December 2005, the Disciplinary Board of Courts of Common Jurisdiction, after having conducted a hearing, found the applicants disciplinary liable for breaches of professional duties under Section 2 § 2 (a) of the Act on Disciplinary Liability of Judges – “gross and/or multiple violation of law” – and imposed upon them the sanction of dismissal from office, as provided for by Section 4 § 1 (d) of the Act.
6. That decision was upheld, by a majority of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia on 10 August 2006. One of the judges sitting in the Disciplinary Chamber expressed a dissenting opinion whereby he stated that the various episodes of purported miscarriage of justice had not been a manifestation of intentional wrongdoing on the part of the applicants but had rather been prompted by their own sincere reading of the legal provisions in question, which was part of their freedom to exercise judicial discretion based on their “inner professional faith” (see paragraph 8 below).
B. Relevant domestic law
7. Section 2 § 2 (a) of the Act of 23 February 2000 on Disciplinary Liability of Judges, as amended on 23 June 2005 and applicable at the material time of the events, provided, amongst other, for the following type of disciplinary offence – “gross and/or multiple violation of law committed during the adjudication of a matter in court”.
8. Section 2 contained a further comment, which read as follows:
“A gross violation of law committed during the adjudication of a matter in court is a violation of significant scope which has already caused in actual fact or could potentially have caused disadvantage to the legitimate rights and interests of a main party to the proceedings or a third party. Violation of law is considered to have been multiple when it was committed three or more times.
If misinterpretation and misapplication of law has been prompted by the judge’s inner faith, it shall not be considered as ‘a gross and/or multiple violation of law’.”
9. Section 4 § 1 of the above-mentioned Act provided for the list of various disciplinary penalties in order of their severity: admonishment, reprimand, rebuke, and dismissal from office of an acting judge.
10. Pursuant to Section 6 § 2 of the Act, the High Council of Justice was vested with the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a judge for an offence liable under Section 2 § 2 (a).
COMPLAINTS
11. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that (i) the disciplinary proceedings against them were not conducted by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” and that (ii) the proceedings were unfair given that the principle of equality of arms was not respected.
12. The applicant further complain that the legislative provisions under which his disciplinary liability was determined – Section 2 § 2 (a) of the Act on Disciplinary Liability of Judges – lacked the requisite precision, clarity and foreseeability and thus went contrary to the principle of “no punishment without law”, which is embodied in Article 7 of the Convention.
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings in the present cases under its civil or criminal heads?
In the affirmative, was the court which dealt with the applicants’ cases “established by law” and “independent and impartial”, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations or the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected during the disciplinary proceedings against them?
2. Was Article 7 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings in the present cases?
In the affirmative, was the wording of Section 2 § 2 (a) of the Act on Disciplinary Liability of Judges precise and foreseeable enough for the applicants to regulate their professional duties, as required by Article 7 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
7607/07
08/02/2007
Mr Merab TURAVA
23/09/1964
Tbilisi
Ms Nino GVENETADZE
27/02/1964
Tbilisi
Mr Murman ISAEV
09/08/1954
Tbilisi
8710/07
05/02/2007
Ms Tamar LALIASHVILI
10/06/1963
Tbilisi
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy