The Public Defender echoes the rulingsof the Tbilisi City Court and the Court of Appeal against the Public Defender's Office and states that beyond the systemic gaps, particular approach of the court towards this particular case creates an impression that its aim is to intentionally discredit the Public Defender, as a constitutional institution.

The case concerns the decision made in the case of Ilia Chanturaia, former head of the Public Defender’s Department of Chancellery and Human Resources and a responsible person for issuing public information and protecting confidential information.

It is unfortunate that the court hearing was held in serious violations of law, which at least leads to legitimate questions about the impartiality of certain judges. In addition, violations in this particular case and the unjustified decision of the court of first instance highlights the vicious practices and shortcomings, which exist in the justice system and which have been mentioned by the Public Defender for years, including in his parliamentary reports.

Justice must be independent from all kinds of influences and should be guided only by the law, however, it is important that the independence and impartiality of the court system be created by the judges themselves, so that their activities do not create the sense of bias, which, unfortunately, is a problem in today’s Georgian judicial system and it was evident in a number of cases.

The motive of Ilia Chanturaia’s dismissal was the gross violation of his official duties, the use of other’s personal and confidential information against the rules strictly defined by the current legislation, and the issuance of an instruction to delete a registered document from the electronic program of cases and to replace it with another document.

The main shortcoming in the hearing of the case in the court of first instance was related to the rule of distribution of registered complaints among judges. Despite the fact that the Law of Georgia on Distribution of Cases in Common Courts and Assignment of Powers to Other Judges defines the rules of distribution of cases among judges, the Tbilisi City Court notified the Public Defender that it did not process the data on the distribution of cases, which, in fact, means that nobody can check whether the court chairman distributed the registered cases in compliance with the requirements of the law or he/she committed a violation. So specifically, according to the case files, Ilia Chanturia’s lawsuit against the Public Defender's Office was accepted by Tbilisi City Court Judge Diana Parkosadze, but it was considered by Davit Tsereteli, another judge of the same panel. The Tbilisi City Court did not provide the Public Defender with information about distribution of cases to Davit Tsereteli and Diana Parkosadze according to the relevant rules.

These are the shortcomings for which the Public Defender has been demanding the introduction of the electronic distribution of cases in the courts for many years; despite the fact that these changes were reflected within the framework of the third wave of judicial reform, postponement of its full implementation till 2018 is harmful for the Georgian justice system. More than enough time has passed since the necessity for these changes was raised and so it was possible to solve all technical issues relating to the introduction of the rule of electronic distribution of cases.

According to the information received, during the transfer of the suit to the judge, Davit Tsereteli was on leave, which, according to the applicable legislation, is basis for suspension of duties. Accordingly, a question arises about why judge Tsereteli considered the case against the Public Defender's Office, in an accelerated manner.

Consideration of the lawsuit registered on July 26, 2016, was completed by the same judge at a major session on 21 September 2016, which lasted from 12:00 to 19:00. On the same day, the judge put off consideration of all other cases, which had been scheduled after 12:00, and this took place under the circumstances when violation of the terms of consideration of cases is an established practice.

The quality of justification of the Tbilisi City Court decision, which was upheld today by the Court of Appeal, is beyond any criticism. Neither the Tbilisi City Court nor the Court of Appeal has termed Chanturaia’s actions as disciplinary offenses. Moreover, the court, with regard to the violation of the confidentiality of other person's personal data, stated that the Public Defender is not authorized to establish violation of personal data within the framework of disciplinary proceedings, if the case had not been considered by the Personal Data Protection Inspector, whereas the competence of the Personal Data Protection Inspector is to study offences and not the abuse of power by an official, undue fulfillment or neglect of official duties, violation of official regulations or rules established by internal organizational document, or disciplinary violations.

In addition, the court has not considered issuance of an instruction by Ilia Chanturia to his subordinate to delete a registered document from the electronic program of cases and to replace it with a document with different content as a disciplinary violation.

The Court has, in fact, encouraged the mentioned action, not only for the Public Defender's Office, but for all other public service systems where proceedings are conducted in electronic programs, and thus the court put public management in a serious danger.

The Public Defender will appeal against the ruling of Giorgi Gogiashvili, the judge of the Court of Appeal, in the Supreme Court. In addition, the Public Defender has already appealed to the High Council of Justice to study the legality of the transfer of case to the judge.