At the session of the Milli Majlis held on December 23, 2022, MP Gudrat Hasanguliyev claimed that the appointments of judges to the appeal courts were carried out in a manner contrary to the law.
According to the MP, judges appointed to higher courts should have at least 5 years of judicial experience. However, this requirement was violated during the last appointment. So, judges with less experience than the time stipulated by the law in the lower courts were appointed as judges in the appeal courts.
Fakt Yoxla examined whether this claim of the MP was true.
10 of the judges appointed to the appeal courts on December 21, 2022, did not have 5 years of judicial experience.
Fakt Yoxla came to this conclusion while analyzing the draft sent to the Milli Majlis and information about judges posted on the website of the Judicial Law Council.
Judges appointed to the Baku Court of Appeal:
Bahramzade Sabit Khanlar oglu
Rustamli Mahammad Ali oglu
Musayeva Jamila Jeyhun gizi
Akhundova Gunay Tayar gizi
Ayyubov Farid Ilham oglu
A judge appointed to the Ganja Court of Appeal:
Aliyev Nural Turab oghu
Judges appointed to the Sumgayit Court of Appeal:
Jabbarova Gulnar Inqilab gizi
Rahimli Lala Elkhan gizi
Judges appointed to the Shirvan Court of Appeal:
Hasanov Samir Firdusi oglu
Ahmadov Parviz Tarlan oglu
Milli Majlis appoints judges to appeal courts on the basis of the President's presentation.
Appointment to the judiciary, related requirements, and the term of office of judges are regulated by the Constitution and the Law on Courts and Judges.
According to Part 1 of Article 126 of the Constitution, citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan who have the right to participate in elections, have a higher legal education, and have worked as a lawyer for more than 5 years can become judges.
However, the experience of a lawyer alone is not enough for higher instance courts (appellate and cassation instance courts).
Article 94 of the Law on Courts and Judges states that persons who have worked as judges of first instance courts for at least 5 years can be appointed to the positions of judges of higher courts.
However, the issue of amending Article 94 of the Law was raised in the Milli Majlis.
According to e-huquq.az, according to the proposed amendment to the Law on Courts and Judges, which was discussed at the meeting of the Legal Policy and State Building Committee of the Parliament on December 21, 2022, and recommended to the plenary session, as a rule, persons who have worked as judges of first instance courts for at least 3 years, not at least 5 years, can be appointed to the positions of judges of higher courts.
This proposal is based on Article 96 (Term of office of judges) of the Law, which appoints judges to the position of judges for a period of three years for the first time.
Judges are involved in training courses at least once a year during that period. At the end of this period, the judges' performance is evaluated.
If the proposed amendment to the law is adopted, judges who successfully complete the evaluation phase will be able to be appointed directly to the higher courts after 3 years of experience, but it is important to note an issue.
The amendment proposed for Article 94 of the Law on Courts and Judges is currently in the process of being adopted by the parliament.
Although that amendment envisages the appointment of judges with 3 years of work experience to higher courts, currently this requirement is specified in the law for 5 years.
In this regard, the appointment of judges with no 5 years of judicial experience to the higher courts was carried out in violation of the requirements of Article 94 of the Law on Courts and Judges.
Furthermore, the said norm mentions the expression "as a rule" referring to the appointment of judges. This means that, apart from the general rule defined by the norm, exceptional cases can also be taken into account.
However, since the legislation does not define the scope of those exceptions, the appointment of judges without 5 years of work experience to the higher instance courts was accompanied by the violation of Paragraph 3 of Article 94.
Fakt Yoxla concludes that Gudrat Hasanguliyev's claim is True.
