As reported in the media, on December 16, 2025, a representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia provided information to the people gathered in front of the Parliament of Georgia about the latest legislative amendments and informed them that in the event of an assembly, including the one held on the pathway and obstructing the movement of people, a 5-day advance warning of the Ministry was required. According to the representative of the Ministry, after submitting such a notice, those wishing to assemble must wait for the Ministry's response and relevant instructions. In case of non-observance of the above procedure, the assembly will be considered a violation of the law and measures provided for by law will be taken against its participants.

As a result of the amendments made to the Law of Georgia on Assemblies and Demonstrations on December 10, the obligation to provide prior notice has been extended to cases when an assembly is held “in a place where people are moving” or when it “obstructs the movement of people.” It is noteworthy that the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia has been granted the authority to consider the appropriateness of the route, place and/or time of the assembly, and issue a mandatory instruction within 3 days after receiving the notice, if the assembly, among other things, poses a threat to the unhindered movement of people.

The Administrative Offences Code of Georgia provides for strict sanctions for failure to comply with the above-mentioned notice procedure and instructions issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, as well as for intentionally creating obstacles to the movement of people, which, except for few cases[1] provided for by law, implies administrative detention of participants and organizers of the assembly. At the same time, the grounds for giving instructions and interfering with the right allow for quite broad interpretations.

In the conditions of such unclear legislative provisions, the Public Defender of Georgia believes that the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia should be guided by the strict requirements of necessity and proportionality when interfering with freedom of assembly. It is important for the Ministry not to restrict the rights of participants in a peaceful assembly when the discomfort created for pedestrians, considering the alternative routes of movement, the number of participants in the assembly and the form of the assembly, does not reach a sufficient degree of seriousness. Taking into account such a human rights standard, it is not foreseeable enough for the Public Defender in what cases the expression of protest on the sidewalk can create a legitimate basis for interference with the right, especially when the exercise of the right, as a rule, is carried out in this form for a short period of time. It should also be taken into account that broadly formulated legislative provisions should not be enforced so that the obligation of prior warning makes the possibility of holding an assembly subject to obtaining a permit, which is expressly prohibited by Article 21 of the Constitution of Georgia.

In this regard, the Public Defender points to the approach of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which regulations establishing the obligation of prior notification cannot become a hidden obstacle to the exercise of freedom of assembly.[2] The Guidelines on Freedom of Assembly, developed by the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission, state that the enforcement of such a norm should not be an end in itself. Otherwise, the failure to notify should not in itself lead to the assembly being considered unlawful, to interference with the rights of its participants, or to its dispersal.[3]

The Public Defender emphasizes that an assembly, by its very nature, may cause some disruption to the normal rhythm of life, but such disruption should be permitted by the authorities, except in cases where it significantly harms other interests.[4]

[1] Part 3 of Article 32 of thte Administrative Offences Code of Georgia.

[2] European Court of Human Rights, Oya Ataman v. Turkey, Judgment of 5 December 2006, para. 38

[3] OSCE/ODIHR and European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission); Guidelines on Freedom of Assembly, Third Edition, para. 112.

[4] See UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 37 (2020) on the right of peaceful assembly (Art. 21), CCPR/C/GC/37, 17 September 2020, para. 47.