Ruling party says two Venice Commission recommendations on judges already met

Ruling Georgian Dream party member Archil Talakvadze says that two of the Venice Commission recommendations regarding the bill on the selection and appointment procedures of the Georgian Supreme Court judges have already been taken into account and the related sections in the bill have been amended.

The statement comes after the meeting of the Georgian Dream ruling party earlier today, which followed the recommendations provided by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe on April 16 on the bill offered by ruling party MPs.

The recommendations fulfilled concern the examinations for non-judge candidates of the Supreme Court and the participation of the High Council of Justice [a body which is responsible for the selection and appointment of judges in Georgia] members in the selection procedures if the member is running for Supreme Court judge.

A member of the High Council of Justice, who is a candidate for judges of the Supreme Court, will be excluded from all procedures related to the selection and nomination of candidates,” Talakvadze said.

He stated that the non-judge candidates will not have to pass an examination to run for the position.

The related recommendation stated that the requirement for non-judge candidates to have passed the judicial qualification examination “should be reconsidered” because, as indicated [in the bill], only “specialist of distinguished qualification in the field of law” could be non-judge candidates for the Supreme Court.

“Persons with such qualifications should not be forced to sit an examination to prove that they are capable of dealing with points of law, which is the essence of the work of a Supreme Court,” the commission stated.

Talakvadze claimed that other recommendations might also be considered.

• See the Venice Commission report here.

The opposition and NGOs say that the Venice Commission was negative regarding the bill.

Irakli Kobakhidze, Parliament Speaker of Georgia, who is one of the authors of the bill, however, claims that the report is positive.