The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) stated that “Georgian Dream” continues its unconstitutional attacks on the freedom of assembly with a new legislative initiative.

According to GYLA, the new legislative package proposed by Georgian Dream introduces further repressive changes to the Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations and the Code of Administrative Offenses.

GYLA asserts that Georgian Dream is attempting to effectively abolish the freedom of assembly.

“Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Georgia guarantees the freedom of assembly without prior authorization. Paragraph 2 of the same article allows for the possibility of requiring prior notification. It is important that this should not be interpreted so that the notification requirement de facto makes the exercise of the freedom of assembly dependent on state approval.

According to the Constitutional Court of Georgia, ‘the freedom of assembly/demonstration generally includes the freedom to choose the location of the assembly/demonstration within a reasonable framework established by law. The ability to achieve the goals of an assembly/demonstration often depends on the proximity to the intended audience, the convenience of gathering people at that location, or the resonance that can be achieved precisely from that location. Frequently, assemblies/demonstrations are associated with specific locations, including roads, and naturally cause traffic disruptions. According to established Constitutional Court approaches, the right to assemble/demonstrate should take precedence when its exercise is impossible without limiting others’ rights, and blocking a roadway constitutes an objective necessity.’

Similarly, under the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of assembly includes the right to choose the time and place of an assembly. The European Court of Human Rights has stated that states must show a degree of tolerance toward assemblies that may disrupt daily life. Furthermore, any notification system, in order to comply with the Convention, should never become a de facto permit procedure.

The importance of being able to choose the location and time of an assembly is also emphasized by the UN Human Rights Committee. The Committee notes that requiring government approval undermines the fundamental right to freedom of assembly. A notification system should not be used as a tool to obstruct assembly, and individuals should not face disproportionate sanctions solely for failing to provide notice,” GYLA stated.

According to GYLA, the new amendments initiated by Georgian Dream, as well as other legislative changes enacted in 2024-2025 affecting freedom of assembly, exceed the constitutional and international human rights limits on restricting this right. They represent not a legitimate and proportionate measure, but another step toward criminalizing freedom of assembly.

“Georgian Dream is attempting to establish a permit system inconsistent with the Constitution of Georgia, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is worth noting that Georgian Dream has already required permits for assemblies and demonstrations in enclosed public spaces. The new amendments leave virtually no space where assemblies can occur without de facto approval and take away people’s ability to choose the location themselves. Applying the same rules for assemblies on sidewalks as for assemblies on roadways, even when sidewalk assemblies cause far less disruption, shows that the goal is not protecting others’ rights or public order but creating unjustified obstacles to assemblies and demonstrations.”

GYLA emphasizes that these amendments are part of a continuing authoritarian legislative trend. Between 2024-2025, regulations on assemblies and demonstrations were repeatedly amended, penalties increased, new administrative and criminal liabilities were introduced, and international institutions, including the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, strongly criticized these changes.

“It is clear that through this approach, Georgian Dream is attempting to effectively abolish freedom of assembly,” GYLA concludes.

Key Changes Introduced by Georgian Dream’s New Repressive Draft Law

  • Notification Requirement Expanded: The Ministry of Internal Affairs will now be required to receive notifications even if the assembly occurs on public walkways, whereas previously notification was required only for assemblies on roadways, and notifications were submitted to municipal authorities rather than the MIA.
  • Notification Deadline: Notifications must still be submitted no later than five days before the assembly or demonstration. Spontaneous assemblies/demonstrations must also be reported immediately upon the responsible person learning about it, and the notification will now be addressed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
  • MIA Authority: Within three days of receiving notification (or at the time and place of a spontaneous assembly), the MIA may decide to change the location, time, or route of the assembly and issue a binding written instruction to the organizers. Previously, municipalities could only make recommendations, not binding orders, based on:
  • Potential disruption to the normal functioning of businesses and institutions, or
  • Planning of another assembly in the same location.
  • The draft law now adds traffic, public movement, human rights, and public order concerns as grounds for mandatory instructions.
  • Partial or Full Roadway Blockage: If participants partially or fully block public roads, the MIA may order them to reopen the road or allow movement, considering whether the assembly could take place differently. Previously, this applied only to roadway assemblies.
  • Massive Roadway Blockage: The MIA may warn organizers or participants that if the blockage is not cleared within 15 minutes, the assembly will be deemed illegal, and a decision to terminate it may be made.
  • Administrative Punishment: Under Article 174 prima of the Code of Administrative Offenses, failure to comply with MIA instructions on road blockage or changes to location/time/route may result in administrative detention of up to 15 days (up to 20 days for organizers).
  • Criminal Liability: Repeating the same act may lead to criminal liability under Article 347 of the Criminal Code, with a potential sentence of up to one year of imprisonment.