The group "Young Barristers" releases the findings of a research on the condition of social protection for judges and highlights that greater cost efficiency is required in the process of employing state justices with residential premises. Furthermore, it is necessary to assess the judge's social protection in relation to the goals of quality justice and to improve the material and technical base of the court, to recruit new judges, and to increase the judge's salary, which is directly related to the quality of the decision's justification and the court's anti-corruption environment.

According to Kale Uridia, a lawyer for "Young Barristers," the group was interested in how many judges the state provided with decent living conditions - renting living space, which judges, where do they use the rented space from the state, whether there was a place for the state to provide judges with decent living conditions, The fact of transferring the ownership of the residential area and/or transferring it to temporary use, and the monthly cost of providing decent living conditions for judges.

According to the findings of the "Young Barristers" research, the state has rented living space for 43 judges in order to provide their social safety. Rental of residential properties costs 26,135 GEL. Annually, 313,620 GEL. The geographical region where judges require governmental social protection is well documented. In particular, these cities are: Ambrolauri (for 1 judge), Akhalkalaki (for 1 judge), Akhaltsikhe (for 1 judge), Batumi (for 5 judges), Borjomi (for 1 judge), Gori (for 3 judges), Gurjaan (for 1 judge) to), Zugdidi (to 2 judges), Tbilisi (for 5 judges), Telavi (for 3 judges), Ozurgeti (for 2 judges), Senaki (for 1 judge), Sighnaghi (for 3 judges), Poti (for 2 judges), Kutaisi ( for 10 judges) and Tsageri (for 1 judge).  In addition, it is established that after October 1, 2012, in general courts, the state did not transfer the ownership or use of residential premises in order to provide judges with decent living conditions. At this stage, the construction of residential campuses for judges is not planned either.

The organization points out that social protection of judges, which needs to be provided with living space, should not be viewed negatively or critically by the society. Temporary accommodation of judges is an obligation of the state and one of the important components for the functioning of the court. According to Article 68 of the Law of Georgia "On Unified Courts", a judge who does not have a residential apartment in a self-governing city (municipality) in order to exercise judicial authority, the state provides the necessary living area or reimburses the necessary expenses. (The decision on the provision of residential apartments for the chairman and members of the Supreme Court is made by the Chairman of the Supreme Court, and on the provision of residential apartments for judges of appeals and district (city) courts - the Supreme Council of Justice of Georgia). In Georgia, in the system of common courts, there are about 400 judges, and the issue of social security, apart from the satisfaction with living space, also faces other directions. In particular, in order to receive quality justice, it is necessary to improve the material and technical base, hire new judges, increase the judge's salary, which will lead to an individual judge focused on the consideration of the case and the justification of the decision, reduction of bias and the probability of corruption, easing of cases and consideration of disputes within the time limits established by law, as a whole Increasing trust between the public and the judiciary, which has been significantly reduced in recent years due to the absence of strategic court communication.

According to the "Young Barristers", it is important for the state to be cost-effective and to institutionally approach the goal of providing judges with social security - living space in the regions and cities. In terms of construction of residential campus for judges in Tbilisi. In addition, the state can purchase residential apartments in the already built residential area, which would reduce the cost of at least 313,620 GEL annually, according to today's data. It is unclear why the issue is not discussed and prepared in this regard. 

Obviously, the residential premises should be given to the judges for the period of exercising their authority and the organization clearly states that it is welcome when there is no transfer of temporary residential premises with property right to the judges. There is a fact in the Georgian judicial system when, according to the decree of the President, adopted in June 2007, in connection with the transfer of the Constitutional Court to Batumi, in order to ensure the guarantees of social protection of the judges, the state gave all the judges of the Constitutional Court, for a symbolic price - 1000 GEL, based on purchase agreements, real estates with the right of ownership. According to the recommendations of the European Council and the Venice Commission, providing judges with non-monetary benefits may undermine the independence of the judge.

Despite its criticism of the implementation of actual social protection measures for judges and judicial reform, "Young Barristers" encourages the Georgian government to:

• increasing the number of judges to decrease the strain on a single judge;
• Create a strategy for providing housing for judges that, in the long term, will address the social protection guarantees of judges who require housing services in the regions and in Tbilisi.
• Increasing the salary of judges at all levels of court in order to improve the quality of justice and attract the interest of qualified private-sector lawyers in participating in the competition for the appointment of judges.

For information: the organization will continue to work on this issue. In 2017, the Parliament of Georgia considered the organization's legislative proposal, which was aimed at clarifying the guarantees of social protection of judges, the possibility of transferring the ownership of residential premises to judges, and the elimination of inaccuracies in the legislation. In particular, the proposal meant the transfer of residential premises to judges for temporary use, for the period of their activity as judges. The Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliament did not find it appropriate to make the proposal a law and noted that due to the importance of the issue, it was necessary to discuss it in detail and in substance. Also, the conclusion of the State Audit Service, which would assess the issue of cost-effectiveness of providing rent to judges.