T R AN S P AR E NCY I N T E R N A T I ON A L ROMAN I A
TI Georgia monitored the court administration and judges across a number of specific criteria,
including: reasonable time and punctuality of the hearings, protection of the right to a public hearing,
due regard to the procedural handling of the hearing, use of inquisitorial principle, and the observance
of equality of arms.
TI Georgia did not attempt to determine the merits of the administrative cases monitored, nor did it
review the case files. Therefore, we are not in the position to judge the fairness or legality of the
decisions made by the judges. Yet the extremely high success rate of state parties in administrative
court cases raises concern that judges might be biased in favor of the state when rendering final
TI Georgia’s court monitoring project aims to facilitate the transparency, efficiency and accessibility
of Georgia’s justice system in the area of administrative law.
The cases for monitoring were selected according to the official schedule published on the web-
pages of the relevant courts, with the exception of KDC which did not have an official web-page.
Our monitors also randomly attended hearings when the clerks announced the start of hearings in the
corridors of the court buildings, or when the size of the crowd outside a courtroom and the presence of
journalists indicated that there was a high-profile case under discussion; these were also cases
broadly discussed throughout media. In order to collect information on the scheduled cases,
TI Georgia’s monitors were also in regular contact with the assistants of judges, bailiffs, court
administrative staff, the parties and their representatives. Collecting information from diverse sources
was particularly useful given the fact that the hearings of most of the high-profile cases monitored
were not published on the official schedule of courts.
TI Georgia believes that the unusually high success rate of the state party in administrative cases may
impede the development of Georgia’s judicial system in general, and the application of the essential
principle of adversary trial and party equality in particular. Also, this report has identified flaws in the
court system, such as that judges tended to differentiate between ordinary and high-profile cases by
favoring the government and limiting citizens’ right to a public hearing in cases of significant public
Title of the project
Assessment of corruption in the judicial system of Kyrgyzstan
Scale of the project