Based on Paragraph B of Article 21 of the Georgian Organic Law on the Public Defender of Georgia, the Public Defender has addressed the Chairman of the Kutaisi Court of Appeal with a recommendation to study the order on the dismissal of citizen Khariton Shkubliani from his job and make a decision that corresponds with the law.

On April 18, 2011, the Public Defender of Georgia received an application of citizen Khariton Shkubliani that concerned an alleged violation of his right to labor. The Public Defender requested and studied all the documents on the case.

Citizen Kh. Shkubliani was warned on December 1, 2010, about his possible dismissal from his job from January 1, 2011, which was connected with the reorganization of the Kutaisi Court of Appeal. In accordance with the December 24, 2010 order of the Chairman of the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, citizen Khariton Shkubliani was dismissed from his job from January 2011 due to staff reduction.

According to the list of the staff members provided by the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, as of December 23, 2010, before Kh. Shkubliani was dismissed, 19 employees worked in the Mandaturi Service as staff members.

In accordance with Subparagraph K, Part 1, Article 2 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, the discretionary power provides administrative agencies and officials with some degree of latitude to choose the most reasonable decision among several lawful decisions in compliance with public and private interests.

The staff lists of each service, including the staff list of the Mandaturi Service, had been drawn up separately. Accordingly, for positions in the staff of the Mandaturi Service, only the candidacies of the employees of this department should have been considered. In spite of this, in this case, candidacies of employees of other departments – the Secretary at Meetings of the Department of HR and Organizational Issues and the Head of the Currier Sector of the Chancellery and Citizens’ Reception (department) – were also considered. The professional skills and personal qualities of the aforementioned persons should have been compared to those of the employees of the corresponding services rather than to those of the employees of the Mandaturi Service.

In addition, even if the Chairman of the Kutaisi Court of Appeal acted on the basis of his discretionary authority when he dismissed Kh. Shkubliani, the order on the dismissal is still unsubstantiated. The order of the Chairman of the Kutaisi Court of Appeal on the dismissal of Kh. Shkubliani does not indicate why the other 17 employees of the Mandaturi Service, the Secretary at Meetings of the Department of HR and Organizational Issues, or the Head of the Currier Sector of the Chancellery and Citizens’ Reception (department) were given priority. In particular, the order does not specify on the basis of what professional skills, qualifications, abilities, personal qualities, and other skills that are necessary to fulfill the duties of the job they were given priority.

All the aforementioned has made it clear that there are factual and legal preconditions confirming that the Kutaisi Court of Appeal substantively violated the requirements established by law when it made the decision, which, in its turn, violated citizen Khariton Shkubliani’s right to labor.