Venice Commission on amendments to the Law on Political Associations of Citizens: Instead of protecting the constitutional order, this legislation threatens to fundamentally undermine it - preventing the formation and survival of a political opposition
The Venice Commission considers that the legislation does not serve its stated objective—namely, to protect the constitutional order against the violent alteration of that order, threats to independence, violations of territorial integrity, war propaganda, violence, or the incitement of national, regional, religious, or social hatred. This is stated in the Venice Commission’s opinion regarding the amendments of October 16, 2025, to the Organic Law "On Political Associations of Citizens," Article 381 of the Criminal Code, and related legislation (concerning legal consequences for persons associated with banned political parties).
The Venice Commission notes that the October 2025 amendments further develop the interconnected legal framework governing the prohibition of political parties and the consequences flowing therefrom for both political parties and individuals “associated” with such parties. They introduce far-reaching and severe restrictions on such individuals in terms of their ability to participate in political life, including by establishing, joining or leading political parties, standing for election, retaining electoral mandates, holding public or political office, and engaging in electoral processes. In parallel, the amendments to the Criminal Code introduce criminal liability in the form of fines for political parties that fail to comply with, or hinder the execution of, decisions of the Constitutional Court in this area.
“While under international standards the prohibition of a political party and related sanctions, including certain sanctions against its party members that represent a threat to the democratic system, may be justified under very limited circumstances, notably the necessity for a democracy to defend itself, subject to strict legitimate aims and proportionality requirements, the Venice Commission is of the view that there is no evidence that the October 2025 package would have responded to such a necessity. The restrictions imposed on individuals “associated” to dissolved political parties raise serious concerns under international human rights standards. The regulatory framework lacks legal certainty and foreseeability, as key triggering concepts, such as the notion of individuals “associated” with a prohibited political party, are formulated in overly broad and imprecise terms, conferring excessive discretion on the authorities. It imposes severe consequences on the freedom of association and electoral rights of individuals which are triggered by the prohibition of a political party without ensuring a genuine, individualised assessment of personal conduct, responsibility, or intent, thereby raising concerns of guilt by association. The severity and disproportionality of the cumulative restrictions constitute an additional shortcoming, since the combined exclusions from political parties, electoral participation, public office, and representative mandates affect the core of political rights without clear temporal limits or effective review mechanisms. Finally, the measures risk undermining electoral processes and political pluralism, as the removal of candidates or termination of mandates – particularly when applied through expedited procedures during electoral periods – may distort electoral competition and voters’ freedom of choice.
In light of these conclusions, the Venice Commission considers that the legislation under examination does not pursue the stated aim of protecting the constitutional order from violent constitutional change, threats to independence, territorial integrity, war propaganda, violence, incitement to national, regional, religious or social hatred. It rather imposes disproportionate and unnecessary restrictions on the political freedom of the Georgian citizens, in particular preventing the formation and survival of a political opposition – especially when considering the cumulative and systemic impact of the legislative framework as a whole, including the recent amendments that expanded the grounds for banning political parties and which barred any individual working for a “foreign agent” from joining a political party or an “organisation with declared party-political objectives” for eight years. Rather than protecting the constitutional order, this legislation therefore risks undermining it profoundly. It is contrary to international standards on pluralism and democracy.
The Venice Commission regrets that the authorities of Georgia have not wished to engage with it in the preparation of this Opinion but remains open to dialogue.
The Commission remains at the disposal of the Parliamentary Assembly for further assistance in this matter”, reads the report.
