The European Court of Human Rights [1] (ECtHR) confirmed that the High Council of Justice discriminated against Maia Bakradze by refusing to appoint her as a judge twice. The Coalition believes that the Strasbourg Court’s decision serves as significant evidence of the long-standing practice of persecuting judges with dissenting views.

Maia Bakradze, as a Chair of an independent judicial association, Unity of Judges, was vocal in her criticisms of the court system. In 2015-2016, after completing her 10-year judicial term, Bakradze participated in two competitions for the selection of judges announced by the High Council of Justice but got rejected on both occasions.

After unsuccessful litigation at the national courts of all three instances, Maia Bakradze applied [2] to the ECtHR in 2020. That same year, the Coalition released an assessment [3], which found that the alleged discriminatory treatment of Maia Bakradze by a dominant group of judges was related to her role as a Chair of the Unity of Judges association and to the views she expressed about problems  with the judicial system.

In Maia Bakradze's case, the ECtHR unanimously ruled that her rights to freedom of expression and association were violated, in conjunction with the prohibition of discrimination. Based on the presented evidence, the ECtHR determined that the majority of the questions asked during the applicant’s interview for a judicial position were not related to her professional qualifications or integrity, but rather to her role in the Unity of Judges and her criticism of the judicial system. The ECtHR’s decision also criticized the national courts. According to the ECtHR, the national courts should have handled the case with greater diligence to ensure the genuine and effective protection of Maia Bakradze from any potential bias or discriminatory treatment by individual members of the High Council of Justice. However, they failed to do so.

According to the ECtHR, judges' freedom to discuss the justice system can also be transformed into their obligation to publicly defend the rule of law and judicial independence when these core values are under threat.

According to the Coalition, the ECtHR's decision serves as further compelling evidence of the systemic challenges in the Georgian judicial system.