On 30 June 2025, members of parliament from the ruling party "Georgian Dream" initiated a package of amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses (hereinafter, the “CAO”) during an extraordinary session of the Parliament, using an expedited procedure. On the very next day, 1 July, the Legal Affairs Committee expressed its support for the draft law.

The proposed amendments concern not only violations related to transportation and vehicles, but also target several frequently used provisions under the law on assemblies and manifestations. The draft legislation, on the one hand, alters the procedural rules governing administrative proceedings and restricts procedural safeguards. On the other hand, it tightens the punitive measures applied in cases of administrative liability.

The draft law introduces amendments in the following areas:

• Automatic imposition of detention in case of non-payment of a fine

Under the proposed amendments, a person sanctioned for petty hooliganism (Article 166 of the CAO), disobedience to a lawful order of a police officer (Article 173 of the CAO), insult of a public official (Article 173¹⁶ of the CAO), or violation of the rules on assembly and manifestation (Article 174¹ of the CAO) will automatically be subjected to administrative detention in case of non-payment of the fine. Under current legislation, in all of these cases, the judge has the discretion to impose either a fine or detention. The initiated draft law not only removes the possibility of imposing a fine, but also significantly increases the minimum threshold of detention. For example, under current legislation, repeated petty hooliganism is punishable by a fine ranging from 3,000 to 5,000 GEL or detention ranging from 5 to 60 days, whereas under the new proposal, failure to pay the fine may lead to a minimum of 30 days of detention. Detention, as a general rule, does not apply to pregnant women, mothers of children under the age of 12, minors, or persons with severe or significant disabilities. [2]

• Regulation of issues related to appealing administrative orders

According to the draft law, the mechanism of appealing to a superior administrative body will be abolished, and fine-related orders will be appealed directly to the court. This will apply not only to decisions made after the law enters into force, but also to complaints already in process. A complaint submitted to a superior body (e.g. the Ministry of Internal Affairs) before the law enters into force, for which no final decision has yet been issued, must be transferred to the court within 10 days of the law’s enactment. The draft law also regulates the enforcement of such orders. Under the proposed amendments, a decision issued by the court will enter into force immediately upon issuance, and filing an appeal will not suspend its enforcement.

The explanatory note to the draft law[3] provides virtually no justification for the necessity of these amendments or their expected outcomes. As noted above, in addition to articles related to assembly and expression, the bill also proposes changes in the area of road safety. The explanatory note focuses primarily on these transport-related violations and leaves the reasons behind the tightening of liability measures unexplained. For example, the very first point of the explanatory note (the problem the draft seeks to address) refers to all of the above-mentioned amendments with only one sentence, merely stating that the procedures set out by the Code of Administrative Offenses need refinement.

Since the beginning of continuous protests in November of last year, “Georgian Dream” has actively employed repressive legislative instruments and mechanisms for increasing liability. The Code of Administrative Offenses has become one of the main tools for restricting fundamental rights to assembly and expression and for suppressing protest. In the last 8 months, several sets of repressive amendments have been introduced to the Code. The amendments adopted in December 2024[4] and February 2025[5] by the “Georgian Dream” parliament significantly increased the severity of administrative and criminal sanctions, expanded police powers, and introduced multiple mechanisms restricting freedom of assembly and expression. Leading international organizations have sharply criticized both the substance of these changes and their disproportionate impact on the exercise of fundamental rights, as well as the legislative process and its lack of legitimacy. [6] Just a few months after these assessments, “Georgian Dream” has once again initiated a restrictive proposal targeting the right to freedom of assembly and expression, using an expedited procedure.

In recent months, the main strategy of “Georgian Dream” for countering protest has been the mass use of financial penalties. However, it has become evident that issuing hundreds of fines daily and handling the complaints process requires significant administrative resources from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Therefore, the draft law aims to create simplified procedures and conditions for punishing and fining protest participants, which effectively reduces procedural safeguards for citizens and alleviates the administrative burden on the Ministry. This will particularly affect those individuals who have been fined for blocking roadways.

The process of conducting administrative proceedings places a significant burden on the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Therefore, the draft law introduces simplified procedures and conditions for punishing and fining protest participants, which will both ease the Ministry’s workload and restrict the procedural safeguards available to citizens. This will particularly affect individuals who have been fined for blocking roadways.

Despite the fact that the mechanism for appealing administrative fines through the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the courts has never been effective, [7] the proposed amendments will formally reduce the guarantees for the protection of rights by eliminating one stage of the process. Moreover, following the adoption of the amendments, protest participants will be subject to more immediate sanctions, as the filing of an appeal will no longer suspend the obligation to pay the fine.

Even more problematic is the provision of the draft law that stipulates the automatic imposition of detention in cases of non-payment of a fine and repeated commission of an offense. This provision effectively disregards the fundamental procedural principle of individualized liability, as well as the nature of detention as a measure of last resort. The draft law once again reveals that the true objective of “Georgian Dream” is the suppression of protest and the persecution of politically undesirable individuals. Since increasing the amount of fines has failed to achieve this goal, the party is now signaling a shift toward the mass use of detention.

Beyond the substance of the initiative, the legislative process itself is noteworthy. The adoption of rights-restricting legislation by a one-party parliament, through expedited procedure and without any consultation process, is contrary to the principles of democratic lawmaking. In the context of fully captured and politically subordinated state institutions — especially the judiciary — which can no longer fulfill their role as checks and balances, repressive laws pose even greater risks to citizens engaged in dissent.

Share