By Nino Apakidze
As Georgia moves closer to potential EU membership, its judicial system sits at the center of debate, caught between promises of reform and entrenched power dynamics. In December 2023, the European Union (EU) set out a nine-step roadmap for Georgia’s candidacy, and judicial reform was high on the list. But as deadlines approach, cracks are showing in the reform process, drawing criticism both domestically and from European officials.
A closer look at the process reveals a judiciary influenced by political interests, sparking questions about how Georgia plans to fulfill the EU’s conditions while maintaining a structure that many say benefits the ruling party. For Georgia, the stakes are high: without judicial transparency, the country’s aspirations for European integration may remain just that—aspirations.
A Vote in Tatters
A glimpse of the judiciary’s struggles surfaced in the small Georgian town of Tetritskaro. During a municipal election, Judge Vladimer Khuchua took the unusual step of examining complaints about ballot design—a minor detail, perhaps, but one that had critical implications for voter secrecy. The judge found that a colored mark on the ballots risked exposing how people had voted. His ruling was both an act of courage and a rare instance of accountability in a judicial system that many say is reluctant to challenge the status quo.
Khuchua’s ruling was seen as an outlier. Local election watchdogs applauded the decision, but it only underscored the challenges of judicial independence in Georgia. Gvantsa Tsulukidze, Director of the Rule of Law Program at the Georgian Democracy Initiative, saw it as a wake-up call: “Without an independent judiciary, elections are at the mercy of those in power. What happens to the value of each vote when the courts are anything but impartial?”
Reforms on Paper, Power Plays in Practice
The EU’s nine-step framework for Georgia’s candidacy includes a call for judicial transparency, with the High Council of Justice (HCOJ) at the heart of the reforms. The HCOJ is the body that oversees Georgia’s judges and appoints its top jurists. Under the current structure, the HCOJ is dominated by nine judge members and six non-judge members, a composition that critics argue gives too much control to insiders and leaves little room for external accountability.
The EU pushed for changes that would make the HCOJ more inclusive and balanced. Instead, Georgia’s government implemented reforms that have kept control largely in the hands of judge members loyal to the ruling Georgian Dream party. Observers say that the reforms were designed more to appease EU scrutiny than to alter the judicial landscape meaningfully.
Mikheil Daushvili, a parliament member from the opposition party For Georgia, attended government-led discussions on judicial reform. He said that opposition voices were shut out early in the process: “Every single proposal from our side was struck down. There was no real debate. It was clear they wanted to check off boxes, not engage in any serious changes.”
A Dual Two-Thirds Voting Solution
For judicial reform advocates, the heart of the issue lies in how decisions within the HCOJ are made. Activists argue that introducing a “dual two-thirds” voting requirement would force the council to reach a broader consensus on important decisions. Currently, decisions need only a simple majority, giving the majority faction effective control.
Nazi Janezashvili, a former member of the High Council of Justice and the founder of the judicial watchdog Court Watch, has spent years pushing for deeper changes within the HCOJ. She says the dual two-thirds rule would prevent single-party dominance: “This isn’t just a rule change. It’s about creating a judiciary that functions as a safeguard for democracy, rather than as a tool for political leverage.”
But despite Janezashvili’s calls and those from other civil society organizations, the ruling party has resisted this measure.
Vetting Judges: A Non-Starter
Another EU condition was a financial and ethical assessment, or vetting, of Georgia’s judges. Independent groups like Court Watch have repeatedly urged the government to introduce measures requiring judges to disclose their assets and sources of income. Without such transparency, critics argue, the judiciary remains vulnerable to undue influence and financial incentives.
“Vetting judges is a basic expectation in most democratic systems,” said Janezashvili. “It’s not radical; it’s common sense. You can’t have impartiality in the courts without transparency.” However, Georgian Dream’s leadership has continued to dismiss the proposal, effectively halting any movement toward financial oversight in the judiciary. Georgian Dream’s key figures, including Irakli Kobakhidze and Shalva Papuashvili, publicly dismissed the idea of veting, labeling it unnecessary and out of sync with their vision for Georgia’s judiciary.
EU’s Review of Progress
The 2024 European Commission report on Georgia’s progress was blunt: key reforms remain unfulfilled. Recent amendments to the Law on Common Courts did not incorporate the EU’s recommendations, with the appointment procedures for Supreme Court judges and the Prosecutor General remaining unchanged. The report highlighted the Parliament’s recent decision to appoint Supreme Court judges under existing, EU-criticized protocols.
Paata Manjgaladze, General Secretary of the Strategy Aghmashenebeli party, pointed to the reform process as symbolic of the ruling party’s approach to the EU’s requirements. “These amendments were never intended to change the system,” Manjgaladze said. “They were designed to keep things as they are, to appease just enough without making any meaningful alterations.”
As Georgia nears a potential turning point in its relationship with the EU, the pace and direction of its judicial reforms may be decisive. “Georgia is at a crossroads where it needs to choose: democratic reform or the path we’ve been on,” said Gvantsa Tsulukidze. “The EU isn’t asking for anything new—it’s expecting us to meet a standard. But that standard doesn’t align with the interests of those who hold power here.”
The EU’s nine-step roadmap for Georgia reflects the bloc’s commitment to democratic principles. But with lingering political control over the judiciary, Georgia faces a test that goes beyond legal reform. At stake is not only the country’s EU candidacy but also its democratic identity. For many Georgians, the question is not only whether the country can change, but whether those in power are willing to let it.
As Nazi Janezashvili put it, “Our people deserve a judiciary that stands with them, not against them. If we can’t achieve that, then the EU’s roadmap will be nothing but a detour.”
