Constitutional Court rejects UNM’s motion to recuse Judge Eva Gotsiridze

Georgia’s Constitutional Court has dismissed a motion from the United National Movement (UNM) seeking Judge Eva Gotsiridze’s recusal, after the full court deliberated without leaving the courtroom.

According to Constitutional Court Chairman Revaz Nadaraia, the court dismissed the motion as unfounded.

“The Plenum of the Constitutional Court deliberated on the United National Movement’s motion regarding the recusal of Judge Eva Gotsiridze from the case. The Plenum rejects the motion as unsubstantiated. The main complaint directed at Judge Gotsiridze was that the phrasing of her questions suggested she had already formed a preconceived attitude and opinion on the matter. She simply asked: ‘Does the party not share responsibility?’ That is a proper judicial question designed to hear a party’s stance on whether it bears any responsibility, and it is entirely the party’s right to answer as it sees fit. The court accepts the answer in whatever form the respondent chooses to deliver it. No preconceived opinion or predetermined stance was expressed in that question or its wording.

The court and other members of the Plenum were also listening yesterday to the questions posed by Judge Gotsiridze, the very ones cited by the party today. We saw no indication whatsoever that Judge Eva Gotsiridze holds a predetermined view on this case. On the contrary, the Plenum unanimously believes this is an attempt to deter a judge from asking critical questions essential to an objective ruling. However, the court has a duty to question every claim before it and hear each party’s stance. Even if a question appears pointed in substance, and the court asks tough questions, that does not mean the court has formed an opinion for or against any party. On the contrary, the more information the court obtains from the parties, the better equipped it is to reach a sound decision. No one will succeed in restricting judges from asking objective questions by filing recusal motions; that is impossible. That was the impression left on the court, and it was the unanimous position of every member of the Plenum,” Nadaraia stated.

UNM member Ana Tsitlidze filed the recusal motion against Judge Gotsiridze under Article 46 of the Organic Law of Georgia on the Constitutional Court. She argued that the judge’s remarks during the hearing and her reactions to the respondent’s answers raised legitimate doubts over her impartiality, suggesting Gotsiridze had already formed a negative view on the central issue under review. Other respondent parties joined the motion, while the claimant party opposed it.