The organization “Young Barristers” address commission of House of Justice, to make an appropriate evaluation of order issued on July 1^st, 2014 by chairman of Tbilisi Court, according to which, after the first instance of court, judges were appointed to the criminal, public and administrative affairs.

Co-founder and leader of “Young Barristers”, Archil Kaikatsishvili states, that two orders, issued by the chairman of Tbilisi Public Court, Mamuka Axlediani on July 1^st, 2014, “appointment of judges according to criminal law to the categorie of cases” and “appointment of the judges according to the categories of cases”, is partially debatable, because there will be high risk, that the examined cases will not be substantiated by the belief, that judge needs during competition between two sides and the principles of equality. The decision of chairman of the court is halting the effective realization of justice, because majority of the cases at Tbilisi Public Court, from July 1^st, 2014, will be addressed to different judges according to the categories.  

On the basis of “Young Barristers” evaluation, during the decision making, interests of the sides, lawful trust towards the case examinator and judge’s inner belief were to be taken into consideration. Most of the cases are on the last phase of examination or/and the important actions are still going on for both sides, and by the given decision, both sides have to invest more power to present and substantiate the highlights of the case to the new judge. In fact, the given decision removed the judges from existing cases, which cause to shift/change the verdict. It is to be noted, that the court could not communicate with the sides in time about the upcoming changes. In addition, the publishing of changes on the website of Tbilisi Public Court took place on July 17, 2014, 16 days after the order was given out and the organization learned about the changes of the judges after first instance of the court, became interested in the subject and tried to communicate about ensuring this information to reach the public.  

“Young Barristers” state, that the decision of chairman of the state court, that after first instance, judges would be appointed according to criminal, public and administrative categories, is not going against the national legislation and international practice, but the orders of the chairman should have taken into consideration, the fact that the judges should have been able to finish the cases they were appointed to instead of shifting them in the midway. Accordingly, it is important for the case to be examined form the side of High council of Justice. In addition to this, to halt the removal of judges from on going cases and only the cases registered after July 1^st, 2014 is examined according to categories.