Watchdog Says GD Uses Administrative Offenses Code to Suppress Protest, Calls for Reform

The Social Justice Center has called for a comprehensive overhaul of Georgia’s Administrative Offenses Code, arguing that it contravenes international human rights standards. The watchdog says that in recent years, the Georgian Dream has increasingly used the mechanism of administrative detention to suppress protests and critical opinion. SJC asserts that meaningful reform will require systematic changes of the flawed “Soviet-era Administrative Offenses Code” which requires the government’s political will, with the involvement of broad public groups and academic circles.

In the analytical document released on March 14, the Social Justice Center (SJC) argues that despite 576 amendments to the Administrative Offenses Code, which was initially adopted by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) in 1984, the Code has become increasingly “chaotic” and “ambiguous.” The watchdog asserts that numerous amendments made to the Code in recent years, mostly “have worsened rather than improved rights’ standards and procedural guarantees.”

The organization emphasized that the recent amendments to the Code contributed to the political instrumentalization of administrative responsibility. According to the SJC, recent amendments—particularly those introduced following the November 2024 protests—have worsened the situation for citizens facing administrative offenses.

SJC notes that the 2025 Action Plan of the Parliamentary Legal Issues Committee, approved on February 17, 2025, for the first time in six years contains no provisions for systemic reform of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The SJC alleges that this signals a shift from the government’s previously stated position.

Lack of Individualized Responsibility Principle

The SJC argues that the Code’s strict penalties for various violations leave no room for judicial discretion. The law prescribes specific penalties for offenses such as a GEL 2,000 fine for wearing a mask during protests, a GEL 5,000 fine for blocking roads, and a GEL 1,000 fine for acts of vandalism, with fixed terms of administrative detention in some cases. There are also articles in the Code that directly provide for administrative imprisonment for a specified period as the only type of penalty.

Article 33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses lists the circumstances that must be taken into account when imposing a penalty. These include: the nature of the offense committed, the identity of the offender, the degree of his guilt, his financial situation, mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Despite this, many articles of the same Code, by imposing an absolutely specific sanction, immediately limit the possibility of taking the listed factors into account when imposing a sanction.

Although the law allows authorities to exempt individuals from liability for minor offenses by issuing verbal warnings, the SJC notes that this does not fully ensure the individualization of sanctions. “According to the Constitutional Court of Georgia, the mechanism of exemption from administrative liability is a manifestation of the principle of individualization of administrative liability, and the principles of individualization of administrative liability and individualization of administrative sanction are essentially different and not interchangeable. Even in the case when a lawbreaker commits a certain, not minor act, the principle of individualization of sanction requires that the body authorized to resolve the issue has the opportunity to determine the amount of the sanction,” the SJC said.

Disproportionately Severe Penalties

The watchdog highlights the severity of recent penalties and notes the reversal of previous reforms. The Code of Administrative Offenses provides for nine different types of administrative sanctions. After a warning, the lightest penalty is a fine, and the heaviest is administrative imprisonment. The current version of the Code provides for disproportionately harsh penalties for both fines and imprisonment. The maximum term of imprisonment is 60 days, and the fine for some offenses can reach half a million GEL.

The watchdog also points out the inconsistency of penalties, such as the 2,000 GEL fine for wearing a mask at a protest, which is 10 times higher than the maximum penalty for concealing violence against a child. Artificially blocking a road during a rally is punishable by the same fine (5,000 GEL) as practicing medicine without a license.

Deficiencies Related to Verbal Warning mechanism

The SJC criticizes the limitation of the use of verbal reprimand/warning mechanism in the Code of Administrative Offenses as overly restrictive, especially following amendments in February 2025. The law allows both police and courts to issue verbal warnings in lieu of punishment, but only if four strict conditions are met: the offense must be minor, it must not be a repeat offense, the offender must not have received a previous warning, and the law must not explicitly prohibit a warning for the offense. The latest amendments added four more cases in which verbal warnings is not envisaged. These relate particularly to offenses related to the freedom of assembly and expression, which the SJC says showed they are aimed at suppressing demonstrations and punishing activists. Furthermore, the law’s exclusion of repeat offenders from receiving warnings is seen as stricter than the Criminal Code, which allows leniency measures for minor offenses.

Inadequate Procedural Guarantees

The existing legislation governing administrative offenses provides for severe penalties – imprisonment and heavy fines. According to international standards, a sanction related to the restriction of liberty is criminal in nature and should be subject to the standards/guarantees applicable in the field of criminal law.

In addition to imprisonment, in some cases an administrative fine may reach the threshold of a criminal sanction, the SJC says. It adds that the current Code of Administrative Offences provides for much higher fines for certain offenses than the Criminal Code.

The SJC points out that while administrative offenses can result in severe penalties, including imprisonment and heavy fines, individuals subject to administrative liability do not have the same legal guarantees as those accused in criminal cases. The SJC underlined that the individuals facing administrative charges do not benefit from protections such as the presumption of innocence or the requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The SJC also notes that recent legislative changes, while adding some procedural safeguards, such as requiring administrative decisions to be lawful and justified, have not significantly improved defendants’ rights. Meanwhile, penalties have become stricter, leaving people accused of administrative offenses without proper legal safeguards.

Vague Definitions of Offenses

The SJC argues that some offenses are vaguely defined, leading to arbitrary decisions by authorities. For example, the offense of petty hooliganism includes behaviors such as swearing in public or insulting others, but does not require a significant disruption of public order, leaving room for broad interpretation. The watchdogs stresses that according to international standards, a minor violation of public order during the exercise of freedom of assembly or expression should not give rise to legal liability.

The watchdog also points out that a new rule criminalizing insulting public officials contains vague language that makes it difficult to define what constitutes an “insult.”

In addition to its vagueness, one of the problems with the new norm added to the Code is that it places state political officials (e.g. the President, Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament) on the same level as ordinary civil servants who, by virtue of their functions, have less public responsibility and visibility, SJC notes. According to the European Court of Justice, the scope of permissible criticism of public figures is wider than that of private individuals.

Deficiencies in the Administrative Detention Mechanism

Detention is one of the problematic institutions provided for by the Code of Administrative Offenses, which puts at risk the protection of a person’s liberty and security, as well as the rights to a fair trial, SJC stresses. “In recent years, the Georgian Dream has increasingly used the mechanism of administrative detention to suppress protests and critical opinion”, the watchdog adds.

The SJC criticizes the administrative detention mechanism, noting that the law does not always specify when detention is necessary and gives the police too much power to arrest people without solid justification. This leads to unfair arrests, especially during peaceful protests. The SJC also highlights the difficulty of challenging the legality of administrative detention, as the process is slow and lacks transparency. While official statistics are scarce, the SJC notes that most detainees are involved in protests, suggesting that the law is often used to suppress peaceful gatherings.

Inconsistent Structure and Legislative Techniques

The SJC notes that the Code of Administrative Offenses, adopted in 1984, contains outdated terms and definitions that are not appropriate for and not used in modern legal systems. The structure of the law is also inconsistent, with violations grouped together in a way that is not always logical. For example, the watchdog says, that the sale of harmful alcoholic beverages is classified under violations of government regulations, whereas it would be more appropriately classified under health or trade laws. This lack of logical organization makes the Code difficult to understand and apply in the current legal context.

Also Read:

• 03/03/2025 – Venice Commission Urgent Opinion on Code of Administrative Offenses and Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations
• 03/02/2025 – GD Announces More Repressive Legislative Changes
• 06/02/2025 – Watchdogs: Repressive Legislative Changes Announced by GD Threaten Fundamental Rights
• 23/01/2025 – CSOs Condemn Repressive Use of Fines Against Protesters in Georgia
  

This post is also available in: ქართული (Georgian) Русский (Russian)