Venice Commission calls Georgia’s protest laws unfeasible
Venice Commission on Georgian Dream’s laws
The Venice Commission has released a critical assessment of the repressive amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences and the Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations, introduced by the one-party parliament of Georgian Dream.
According to the Commission, the bills were rushed through without engaging relevant stakeholders.
“This undermines the legitimacy of the amendments, especially in the broader political context of mass protests,” the Commission noted.
Amidst massive pro-European protests in Georgia, the parliament—comprised solely of Georgian Dream MPs—fast-tracked changes to several laws on 13 December 2024, significantly restricting the rights of public assembly participants. The amendments, for instance, prohibit covering one’s face, using lasers and pyrotechnics during public events, and impose harsher fines for disobeying police and blocking roads.
In early February 2025, the Georgian Dream government adopted further amendments, extending administrative detention to 60 days and banning protests in enclosed spaces.
What does assessment say?
Lawyer Goga Khatiasvhili explains the Venice Commission’s conclusion:
- The Venice Commission notes that the legislative amendments introduce a series of restrictions and prohibitions that significantly impact the freedom of assembly. Moreover, several provisions contain vague and ambiguous wording, granting the government broad discretionary powers that do not meet the criterion of predictability. The lack of legal clarity increases the risk of abuse.
- The laws were adopted hastily, without the involvement of relevant stakeholders. As a result, the legislative process was flawed.
- According to the Commission’s assessment, the administrative fines introduced by the amendments are excessively high. This has a deterrent effect on those who wish to participate in or organize public assemblies, thereby restricting the right to peaceful assembly. Financial penalties should be proportionate to the offence and take into account the socio-economic status of the offender. In cases of minor non-violent administrative offences, imposing any sanctions on participants or organizers of assemblies is deemed inappropriate.
- The Commission states that the right to wear a mask or other face-covering items during assemblies is protected by the freedom of assembly and expression. Therefore, wearing a mask at a peaceful protest should not be prohibited unless there is evidence that it could lead to violence.
- The Commission also highlights that the law’s wording is too vague, creating uncertainty about what exactly is banned. This could include items such as scarves, hats, or medical masks. The broad nature of the provisions not only confuses the public but also grants law enforcement excessive discretionary power, necessitating changes to the law.
- The Commission finds that the ban on laser use also grants authorities excessive discretion in determining what constitutes a laser device.
Recommendations of the Venice Commission
- Reassess the nature and severity of sanctions;
- Introduce clear criteria for individual assessment before applying administrative detention, in line with Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
- Ensure effective legal remedies against administrative arrest and detention (as a preventive measure), guaranteeing timely case review and adequate compensation;
- Clarify the ban on laser and other light-emitting devices to avoid vague wording;
- Narrow and specify the ban on wearing masks, clearly defining the conditions under which covering one’s face is prohibited;
- Clarify the meaning of “clothing and insignia resembling police uniforms” to avoid broad interpretation.
Read more about the amendments introduced by Georgian Dream to Georgia’s Administrative Code [here].
