Compliance with the Adversarial Principle During Deviation From Charges : A Case Study of Georgia
Abstract
In accordance with the first part of Article 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (CPCG), from the moment of commencement of criminal prosecution, criminal proceedings are conducted based on the adversarial principle and the equality of arms. Part two of Article 25 of the same Code states that the collection, presentation, and examination of evidence fall within the competence of the parties, and the court does not participate in this process, except in rare cases. This paper addresses the following the issue of whether a court, on its own initiative, may qualify a claim and find a person guilty of an action that the prosecution does not dispute at all. Specifically, when the court independently intervenes in the qualification of the claim, does it violate the principle of adversarial and equality of arms, thereby interfering with the competence of the parties. How should such actions by the court be understood, and, in general, does the court have the right to find a person guilty of an offense that the prosecution has not disputed throughout the entire process? The study examines both the approach of the European Court on this matter and the practice of national courts regarding the reclassification of the claim, particularly what the court considers a deviation from the charge and the possibility range of the reclassification of the claim. The article also includes a discussion of applicable legal norms and judicial practice and provides conclusions.
Downloads
Metrics
References
2. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1994).
3. Constitution of Georgia (1995).
4. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (2022).
5. Criminal Code of Georgia (1999).
6. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia (2016). No. 1/8/594. The case of Georgian citizen Khatuna Shubitidze against Parliament of Georgia, II, 27.
7. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia (2016). No. 1/5/675,681 Case of Rustavi2 Broadcasting Company LLC and Georgia Television Company LLC against the Parliament of Georgia.
8. Decision of the Plenum of the Constitutional Court of Georgia (2015). №33/1/608,609 Case of introducing a constitutional submission to the Supreme Court of Georgia on the constitutionality of Part 4 of Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia and the constitutional submission of the Supreme Court of Georgia on the constitutionality of subparagraph “g” of Article 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia.
9. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia (2014). №3/2/577 case of Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center (EMC) (NNLE) and Georgian citizen Vakhushti Menabde against the Parliament of Georgia, II-4.
10. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia (2002). №1/126,129,158 case of Georgian citizens Bachua Gachechiladze, Vladimir Doborjginidze, Givi Donadze and others against the Parliament of Georgia.
11. Decision №230AP-13 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia (2014).
12. Decision №398AP-23 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia (2023).
13. Dissenting opinion of Judge George Shavliashvili on the verdict of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia dated (2020). N57 Appendix-19.
14. Decision №647AP-18 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia (2019).
15. Decision on case №2k-7ap.-15 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia (2015).
16. Decision on case №1-165-23 of the Rustavi City Court (2024).
17. Ezeri, A. (2019). (translation: Ketevan Mchedlishvili-Hedrich). Competitive or inquisitorial process: in search of optimal structures, Journal of German-Georgian Criminal Law, 78. ( In Georgia)
18. Fafiashvili, L., Tumanishvili, G., Akubardia, I, Gogniashvili, N., Ivanidze, M., (2017). Criminal procedural law of Georgia, Meridian Publishing House, 81. ( In Georgia)
19. Laliashvili, T. (2015). Criminal legal process of Georgia, Tbilisi, published by World of lawyers, 119. ( In Georgia)
20. Latsabidze, G. (2023). Exceeding the limits of a cassation appeal in the absence of appealing cassation. Tbilisi. Journal "Academic Digest", 2023, 27–34. ( In Georgia)
21. Maglagelidze, L. (2024). Understanding principle of accusation of immutability according to the practice of the Georgian and European Court of Human Rights. Journal of German-Georgian Criminal Law, 76-79 https://www.dgstz.de/storage/documents/pEc1W1kEc5a4XPTs4pJ1ufJPdQr8ws6pCOCUhB6C.pdf ( In Georgia)
22. Mezvrishvili, N., Tumanishvili, G., Kvachantiradze, D., Liparteliani. L., Dadeshkeliani, G., Guntsadze, Sh., Fafiashvili, L., Toloraya, L. (2015). Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, American Bar Association, 85. ( In Georgia)
23. Supreme Court of Georgia (2024). Right to a fair trial (criminal aspects) – Article 6, 64. https://www.supremecourt.ge/uploads/files/1/pdf/adamianis-uflebata-centri/samartliani-sasamartlo-ganxilvis-upleba(sisxli).pdf (last checked:. See also Philip L., How to Apply to the European Court of Human Rights. 359. ( In Georgia)
24. The verdict №949AP-23 of the Chamber of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of Georgia (2024).
25. Tumanishvili, G. (2016). Accusation and deviation during consideration of a criminal case on the merits, Journal of Law, # 1, 278. ( In Georgia)
26. Tumanishvili, G. (2014). Criminal process (review of the general part). Tbilisi, 74. ( In Georgia);
27. I.H. and Others v. Austria, [2013] ECHR, 34,36,38.
28. Juha Nuutinen v. Finland, [2007] ECHR,32, 33.
29. Bäckström and Andersson v. Sweden, [2006] ECHR.
30. Zhupnik v. Ukraine, [2005] ECHR, 39-43.
31. Sipavičius v. Lithuania, [2002] ECHR, 30-33.
32. Dallos v. Hungary, [2001] ECHR, 49-52.
33. Sadak and Others v. Turkey, [2001] ECHR, 52, 56.
34. Mattoccia v. Italy, [2000] ECHR, 61,65.
35. Chichlian and Ekindjian v. France, [1999] ECHR,71.
36. De Salvador Torres v. Spain, [1996] ECHR.
37. U.S. Supreme Court decision in Russell v. United States, Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/369/749/ (346 U.S. at 346 U. S. 376-378):
38. New Zealand Legislation, Criminal Procedure Act (2011). https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/whole.html#DLM3360222 (17.03.2025).
39. Hamling v. United States (1974). 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S. Ct. 2887, 2907, 41 L. Ed. 2d 590, 620[25],
40. United States v. Hess (1888). 124 U.S. 483, 487, 8 S. Ct. 571, 31 L. Ed. 516, 518.
41. U.S. Supreme Court decision in Russell v. United States, Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/369/749/ (346 U.S. at 346 U. S. 376-378);
42. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 544, 558 (1876).
43. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948). Also see: Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313 (1972).
44. United States v. Debrow (1953). 346 U.S. 374, 376, 74 S. Ct. 113, 115, 98 L. Ed. 92, 96 (headnote 3), citing Rule 2, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Copyright (c) 2025 Giorgi Latsabidze
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
