TI Georgia is applying to the High Council of Justice of Georgia with a request to launch disciplinary proceedings against Valerian Tsertsvadze, chairperson of the Tbilisi Court of Appeals. We believe that the chairperson’s actions have violated the requirements of the Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Service; at the same time, his actions undermine the authority and public credibility of the judiciary.  

TI Georgia took an interest in media reports that concern alleged conflict of interest of the chairperson of the Tbilisi Court of Appeals and his use of the official position in favor of a concrete company. Data from the Public Registry confirm that iTechnic LLC was established [1] in 2011 by Valerian Tsertsvadze’s father and brother-in-law (wife’s brother), while a 100% stake in the company is currently owned [2] by his brother-in-law. And the judge’s wife is the manager [3] of this company. As is known, the Tbilisi City Court, on the basis of the demand of iTechnic, seized [4] the accounts and property of iPhone+, iTechnic’s competitor company. Representatives of iPhone+, which is a party in the dispute, believe [5] that the court took this decision under the influence of the chairperson of the Tbilisi Court of Appeals who is personally interested in the outcome of this case. In addition, according to [6] the director of iPhone+, he was forced to leave Georgia due to pressure and surveillance he had been subjected to.  

The chairperson of the Court of Appeals denies any personal links with the aforementioned company, although, on the basis of media reports [7], we also requested and obtained public information which confirms [8] that an official vehicle [9] that the State transferred to Valerian Tsertsvadze, chairperson of the Court of Appeals, was in fact used in one of the commercial ads [10] for the aforementioned iTechnic LLC. It is noteworthy that the same ad shows the vehicle being driven by an employee of the Court of Appeals. The chairperson’s personal links with the company are also confirmed by the information obtained by us, according to which in 2013 Valerian Tsertsvadze mortgaged [11] his own property as collateral for a loan of iTechnic (at that time called Green Apple Georgia LLC). The number of the mortgage contract is also confirmed by a printout [12] from the Public Registry.

Although this statement does not seek to assess the content of the concrete dispute related to iTechnic LLC which is being litigated in the court and the reasonableness of the court’s decision, it should be noted unequivocally that the confirmed use of official powers in favor of the company on the part of the chairperson of the Court of Appeals raises legitimate doubts in the public mind that the chairperson is also interested in the outcome of the dispute related to this company.   

We believe that such use of the vehicle which was transferred by the State for the fulfillment of official duties clearly constitutes misuse of public resources and violates Article 7 of the Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Service according to which public servants may not use official powers or opportunities related to them for the solution of issues outside their official powers. We should also mention Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the same law which prohibits officials from making property transactions with close relatives. The participation of the official vehicle of the court’s chairperson in a commercial ad is, in its essence, a property transaction and gives material benefit to his family’s business at the expense of public resources. Granted, the current official owner and director of the company (a brother of the judge’s wife) is not considered as his close relative according to the law, but the links between the family and close relatives of the chairperson of the court and the said company are undisputable.  

In addition to the misuse of public resources, it is no less important to emphasize that the actions of the chairperson of the court cause damage to the authority and impartiality of the judiciary as a whole, because they reveal the chairperson’s interest in contributing to the development of a business company linked to his family by using his official powers. And this, in its turn, raises legitimate doubts in the public mind that he has also used his official position in connection with the ongoing court dispute.