TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE

High Council of Justice of Georgia

High Council of Justice of Georgia

High School of Justice of Georgia

High School of Justice of Georgia

Disciplinary Committee of Judges of Common Courts of Georgia

Disciplinary Committee of Judges of Common Courts of Georgia

Georgian Bar Association

Georgian Bar Association

Coalition for an Independent and Transparent Judiciary

Coalition for an Independent and Transparent Judiciary

National Center for Commercial Law

National Center for Commercial Law

National Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution

National Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution

Arbitration Initiative Georgia

Arbitration Initiative Georgia

EWMI/PROLoG Supports Working Meeting of Supreme Court Judges on New Admissibility Criteria

11 October 2017 Supreme Court judges discussing implication of ECtHR’s judgments against Georgia on domestic courts practice

On October 6-8, EWMI/PROLoG in cooperation with the EU4Justice Judicial Support Project organized a two-day working meeting for Supreme Court judges on human rights issues. In particular, the meeting concerned a new case admissibility criteria adopted after the so-called “Third Wave” of judicial reform that obligates the Supreme Court to assess appealed lower court judgments in terms of their consistency with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

The two-day meeting was attended by seven Supreme Court judges. Chief Justice Nino Gvenetadze talked about the importance of adopting consistent approaches for the new admissibility criteria and refining Court’s practice in this regard, and two human rights experts, Besarion Bokhashvili and Levan Meskhoradze, facilitated the meeting. Together with judges, the experts discussed the ECtHR admissibility criteria relevant for the Georgian context using the example of ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). They also discussed ECtHR decisions against Georgia and their implications for the Court’s practice. 

USAID
Top of Page