News

By the law of 16 October 2025 “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia,” Article 347 of the Criminal Code of Georgia was set out in a new wording, and a new Article 353³ was added to the Code.

The new edition of the Article 347 of the Criminal Code of Georgia envisages criminal liability for persons, who repeatedly commit an administrative offense as outlined in the paragraphs 9 or 10 of Article 174¹ of the Administrative Offenses Code. The amendment is primarily directed at participants in pro-European protest actions who, every night, block Rustaveli Avenue in Tbilisi as a form of protest or cover their faces with masks or by any other means (for example, with a face covering). The prescribed type and measure of punishment is imprisonment for a term of up to one year, and in cases of repeated commission, imprisonment for a term of up to two years.

The newly introduced Article 353³ of the Criminal Code of Georgia envisages criminal liability for persons, who repeatedly commit an administrative offense as outlined in the paragraph 3 of the Article 173 of the Administrative Offenses Code, namely, repeated disobedience to a lawful order or demand of a police officer or the verbal insult of such officer. The prescribed type and measure of punishment in this case also consists of imprisonment for a term of up to one year, and, in cases of repeated commission, imprisonment for a term of up to two years.

Human Rights Center believes the amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia violates the rights to freedom of speech and expression as well as the freedom of assembly and association, which are guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and European Convention on Human Rights. 

According to the case-law established by the European Court of Human Rights, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are the factors, which shall be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference [with freedom of expression] in relation to the legitimate aim pursued (Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], 2015, § 146). Where the sanctions imposed on participants in an assembly are criminal in nature, particularly weighty reasons are required (Rai and Evans v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 2009). In principle, a peaceful demonstration should not be subject to the threat of criminal sanctions (Akgöl and Göl v. Turkey, 2011, § 43), and in particular, to the deprivation of liberty (Gün and Others v. Turkey, 2013, § 83).

When examining the proportionality of the applied measure, its “chilling effect” must also be taken into account. In particular, the prior prohibition of an assembly may deter individuals from participating in it (Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova, 2006, § 77). Measures such as the use of force to disperse an assembly, the arrest of participants, or subsequent administrative prosecution may affect participation in similar assemblies in the future (Balçık and Others v. Turkey, 2007, § 41). The “chilling effect” is not automatically eliminated even where enforcement measures are later altered, for example, where fines are subsequently annulled by the courts (The United Macedonian Organization Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, 2005, § 135).

The recent repressive legislative amendments adopted by the Georgian Dream Parliament (initially, the effective multiplication of fines under the Administrative Offenses Code, and subsequently the introduction of criminal liability for the same offenses) constitute a “chilling effect” aimed at participants in protest actions, with the purpose of deterring them from taking part in assemblies and thereby inducing them to refrain from exercising their freedom of expression. It is a matter of fact that, as a result of participation in protest actions, a number of individuals have already been imposed administrative fines amounting to several hundred thousand GEL, the practice of applying administrative detention against protest participants has commenced, and, on the basis of the new legislative amendments, criminal prosecutions have already been initiated against numerous individuals.

It is also noteworthy that the right of assembly participants to a fair trial is not ensured. Existing practice demonstrates that they are found liable and fined solely based on uncorroborated and unconvincing testimony provided to the court by police officers. The courts neither require nor examine other neutral or objective evidence. Under these circumstances, the introduction of criminal liability for the “repeated” commission of an offense, based exclusively on police testimony, will result in the imposition of criminal sanctions on protest participants on the basis of a low evidentiary standard.

Human Rights Center calls on the Georgian Dream parliament, to annul the recent repressive amendments to the Administrative Offences Code and Criminal Code of Georgia to ensure respect to the rights to freedom of speech and expression and freedom of assembly and manifestation. 

Human Rights Center