Social Justice Center presents an analytical document: "The "European Model" of Judicial Institutional Arrangement: Salvation or Obstacle to Successful Judicial Reform".

30 years since the restoration of the independence of Georgia, the existence of a trusted, independent, and impartial judiciary is still problematic. However, Georgia, as a transitional democracy, is no exception. Many Central and Eastern European countries with communist backgrounds have a similar history.

Therefore, after 3 decades, it is important to ask the question - Why? Where is the problem?

In Georgia, despite the constant dissatisfaction with the judiciary, there has been no broad public agreement on the reasons for its failure and how they should be tackled. Reforms implemented in the last decade mainly follow the international obligations, in particular the "European model" of the judiciary, proposed in the process of rapprochement with the European Union.

What does "European Model" mean? It is the institutional arrangement of the judiciary that attaches particular importance to the formal independence of the judiciary from political branches of the government. Moreover, it is considered that the best way to achieve judicial independence is to have a strong self-governing body - the High Council of Justice.

This document critically analyzes the historical, political, and legal preconditions for the emergence of this institutional model of the judiciary, the normative framework, and the consequences of its implementation in practice. Based on the analysis, it was revealed that:

• The "European Model" ignores the need for judicial accountability. Significant risks of establishing a hierarchy of power within the system, corruption, and limiting the independence of individual judges are not properly addressed;
• The "European Model" of institutional arrangement of the judiciary is by no means the leading one and, moreover, the "best practice" even in Europe itself;
• Well-established democracies differentiate and individually, through their own experiences, determine the relationship between the judiciary and political branches of the government, the balance between judicial independence and accountability;
• In contrast, in transitional democracies, the direct introduction of the "European Model" has been favored to free the judiciary from the influence of the executive. However, the individual legal, social, or cultural characteristics of these countries, their alienation from legal values ​​and ethical standards due to their past, and the existence of an unstable political environment were not taken into account;
• Georgia is another unfortunate example among European transitional democracies that have failed to properly understand their past and experiences. Georgia shared the proposed "best practice" without preceding real substantial reforms, natural transition of the judicial corps, and broad public and political agreement;
• Such façade democratization of the system and giving uncontrolled power to the High Council of Justice of Georgia by the introduction of the "European Model", eventually facilitated the establishment of so-called "clan rule", led by the influential group within the court.

As a result, the Georgian judicial system "satisfies" all the problematic aspects for which the "European model" is increasingly criticized, and it is vital to start a broad discussion of this criticism at the local level promptly. Otherwise, each subsequent attempt of judicial reform will remain a mere attempt and will not bring real, tangible results.

This document has been prepared in the framework of the project "Support the independent and fair judiciary" which is implemented by Social Justice Center with the financial support of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Social Justice Center. The information and assessments provided in the document do not necessarily reflect the views of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Georgia.

Share