The ECHR DEEMED THE ABUSE OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AN ATTEMPT TO PARALYZE THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Unfounded accusations of bias against judges and complaints filed against them with disciplinary bodies may be viewed as attempts to paralyze the administration of justice and, ultimately, backfire on the complainants themselves.

This was demonstrated by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of “Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia” (Application No. 16812/17), according to the ECHR: Ukrainian Aspect news portal.

In March 2017, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that the former owner of the popular television channel Rustavi 2 had previously been forced to relinquish his rights to the channel, and that the new owners were not bona fide purchasers.

Following this decision, the television channel and its then-owners appealed to the ECHR, arguing that the judges who had heard the ownership dispute were not independent and impartial. Pursuant to Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure, the European Court of Human Rights ordered an interim measure, instructing the Georgian government that enforcement of the national court’s final decision must be suspended and that the authorities must refrain from interfering with the applicant company’s editorial policy.

After analyzing the circumstances of the case, the ECHR found that all but one of the allegations of bias were either unfounded or unconvincing. The involvement of Rustavi 2’s CEO in disciplinary proceedings against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—who was ultimately removed from office—raised certain doubts regarding impartiality. However, the Supreme Court itself thoroughly assessed any such concerns and convincingly dispelled them in a carefully reasoned decision.

The court also took into account that the owners of Rustavi-2 had systematically filed unfounded accusations against many different judges at all three levels of jurisdiction, presumably in an attempt to paralyze the administration of justice. Furthermore, the television channel’s Director General launched groundless and malicious attacks in the media against the judges involved in the case concerning ownership of the channel and against the Georgian judicial system as a whole.

Ultimately, the European Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) of the Convention at any stage of the proceedings. The Court also unanimously declared the remaining complaints inadmissible, including the allegation that the legal proceedings constituted a state-led campaign to silence the opposition media.

The text of the ECHR’s press release on the case of “Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia” (Application No. 16812/17) translated by Oleksandr Drozdov, President of the Ukrainian Bar Association, and Olena Drozdova, Director of the law firm “Drozdov & Partners,” can be found at the link below.