Public trust in the judiciary is essential for voluntary acceptance of court decisions. The judicial system should not only be equipped with guarantees of independence but also acquire and maintain the perception of independence in the broader society through its actions. Activities of the judges - the judicial process and its results - must be widely accessible for public observation, as this plays a crucial function in forming a positive perception of the impartiality and lack of political motivations within the judiciary. The importance of transparency in justice and accessibility of judicial acts for excluding selective and biased justice and for establishing public trust toward the court has been confirmed by the Constitutional Court of Georgia. 

Despite several reforms implemented in the past decade, Georgia’s judiciary faces fundamental challenges and a significant crisis of trust. According to the latest report of the European Commission, the reform of the justice system in Georgia is experiencing regression, systemic challenges in terms of independence and impartiality remain unresolved, and the need for the implementation of the extraordinary integrity checks of judges remains on the agenda.

Implementing the 2019 judgment of the Constitutional Court of Georgia into legislation ultimately required a political agreement, recommendations from the EU and the Venice Commission, and five years instead of one. On January 1, 2024, amendments entered into force that substantially improved normative guarantees of accessibility to judicial acts, although the practical realization of this right still cannot be achieved.

According to assessments from various international and local organizations, informal influences remain the main problem in the judiciary, while selective justice is cited as one of the main evidence of such informal influences. Against this background, the accessibility of judicial acts in cases of high public interest acquires critical importance.

The report reviews the constitutional and legislative standards and practical challenges of accessibility to judicial acts. The report aims to assess the contrast that exists between normative requirements and the actual situation. The discrepancy between legislation and reality manifests in various directions; however, for the purposes of this report, it focuses on cases of high public interest.

Main Findings

The system of common courts continues to violate the Constitution of Georgia and the Organic Law “On Common Courts.” Judicial acts in cases of high public interest remain inaccessible to the public;

IDFI submitted 111 public information requests in the common courts between January 1, 2024, and March 5, 2025, for cases identified under seven different categories. Approximately 90% of the requests were left without any response from the courts, while in the remaining cases, IDFI was refused the issuance of judicial acts in response to public information requests:

- 48 out of the 50 requests under the category of politically motivated cases remained unanswered;

- Out of 8 requests submitted within the category of court cases involving oligarchic interests and influences, all eight requests remained without any response;

- Out of 18 requests sent within the category of court cases involving the interests of the influential group of judges, 13 remained without any response;

- Out of 5 requests submitted within the category of multi-million disputes, all five requests remained without response;

- Out of 9 requests submitted within the category of disputes involving personal or financial interests of high-ranking officials and their family members, 8 remained unanswered;

- Out of 15 requests sent within the category of high-profile cases, all 15 requests remained without any response;

- Out of 6 requests sent within the category of criminal cases against former high-ranking officials, 3 remained without any response.

In no case was a copy of the judicial act provided to IDFI in response to a public information request during the reporting period; 

In those exceptional cases when the court responds to a public information request, it cites reasons for refusing to issue judicial acts that contradict the legislation in force:

- The court continues to violate the clear requirements of the legislation and, with formal reference to personal data protection, often refuses to provide the applicant with a copy of the judicial act adopted in an open session;

- When requesting a copy of a judicial act with clear and unambiguous identifiers (including parties to the dispute, subject of the dispute, presiding judge, etc.), it is frequently indicated that the court does not process cases according to these criteria.

Methodology

During the preparation of the report, the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) relied on academic literature, assessments by authoritative local and international institutions, IDFI's previous reports and assessments regarding the accessibility of court decisions, analysis of the legislative framework, court practice, and requests for judicial acts as public information in practice.

Since the report aimed to assess the accessibility of judicial acts in cases of high public interest, IDFI identified several qualifying circumstances (indicators) that significantly increase the public interest in judicial transparency and accessibility of court decisions in relevant cases. These types of cases were selected considering their relevance for evaluating selective justice, personal and political use of justice, as well as corruption risks and political resilience of the judiciary. Based on these characteristics, IDFI identified seven categories of high public interest and separately assessed the accessibility indicator of judicial acts under each category.

To this purpose, the practical findings presented in this report are based on accumulated practice in 111 public information requests filed with the common courts of Georgia by IDFI since January 1, 2024 as of March 31, 2025. Specifically, the assessment examined the courts' responses regarding requests under each category of high public interest, the explanations provided by them, and the practical obstacles identified in accessing judicial acts. 

In terms of content, this report evaluates the accessibility of judicial acts of high public interest in response to public information requests. Therefore, its purpose is not to assess the effectiveness of the administrative complaint mechanism. Nevertheless, regarding the requests for which IDFI filed an administrative complaint, the document reflects the relevant outcome.

Conclusion

Judicial acts on cases of high public interest remain inaccessible to the public. The common courts system violates the Constitution of Georgia and the Organic Law "On Common Courts."

The substantial improvement of the legislative standard for accessibility of judicial acts years later, in response to the Constitutional Court's judgment, has largely left systemic challenges in practice unchanged.

The common courts system not only disregards the substantive aspects of the existing legislative regulation on the accessibility of judicial acts but also violates the basic formal requirements of the legislation.

The continuous violation of legislation reveals that the system, governed by informal influences, deliberately avoids increasing public awareness, significantly restricting public oversight of the judiciary. 

Accessibility of Judicial Acts in cases of high public interest

/public/upload/0IDFI/Accessibility of Judicial Acts in cases of high public interest.pdf

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union, within the framework of the project "Promoting greater civic awareness and engagement in judicial reforms and facilitating increased access to justice through holistic multi-agency action". Its contents are the sole responsibility of the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.