The USAID Rule of Law Program expert Radoslav Prochazka completed his four-day visit to Georgia, during which he studied the challenges of the Georgian Constitutional Court (CC) procedure and case scheduling practices. The information gained will enable the expert to prepare recommendations on how to improve the CC’s current practices and minimize the risk of subjectivity during case scheduling, the adjournment of hearings, deliberations, and issuing of decisions. 

Mr. Prochazka met with Deputy Public Defender of Georgia Giorgi Burjandze (September 7), civil society representatives engaged in litigation at the CC (September 8), and the President, judges and the legal counselors of the CC (September 9).  

“I believe the Constitutional Court of Georgia has the potential to play a decisive role in the advancement of Georgia’s democracy, as it is the court that guarantees that the system of checks and balances works and that human rights are not infringed upon by the will of the majority represented in the legislature. I know your court is setting important precedents advancing democracy in this country. We all expect that this approach will continue, and all your future decisions will be guided by the best interest of Georgia and its democratization goal. I hope this consultancy will result in valuable improvements for the court, as well as for its consumers and the citizens who bring cases to the CC.” stated Director of the Office of Democracy, Rights and Governance at USAID Georgia Leah Kaplan in her welcome comments at the meeting with the CC representatives. 

Moderated byJudicial Reform Specialist at the USAID Rule of Law Program Eka Oniani, the discussion focused on the existing procedural framework of Georgian Constitutional Court and current practices. 

Following the expert’s questions, five judges of the Constitutional Court shared their opinions about how the current practice of case scheduling can be improved with or without major legislative changes in court procedures. The expert shared the concern that the Court’s reputation could be affected by delays in decision-making and increasing backlog. The reasons for these delays were discussed and many interesting issues were raised during these discussions.