Under such vague legislative provisions, the Public Defender of Georgia considers that the Ministry of Internal Affairs should be guided by strict requirements of necessity and proportionality when interfering with the right to assemble. It is important that the Ministry does not restrict the rights of participants in peaceful assemblies, the Ombudsman’s office stated in a release commenting on amendments to Georgia’s Law on Assemblies and Manifestations.

The statement notes that it is not clearly defined under what circumstances a protest on the sidewalk could constitute a legitimate basis for interference with rights, especially since the exercise of the right usually occurs over a short period of time.

“As reported in the media, on 16 December 2025, representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs informed persons gathered near the Parliament about the latest legislative amendments (https://tinyurl.com/2jvsxvyn), stating that if an assembly is held in a pedestrian area and obstructs movement, the Ministry must issue a prior warning at least five days in advance. According to the Ministry, after such a warning, assembly organizers must await the Ministry’s response and relevant instructions; failure to comply renders the assembly unlawful and measures prescribed by law will be applied against participants.

Following amendments made on 10 December to the Law on Assemblies and Manifestations (https://tinyurl.com/5ywy2jmt), the obligation for prior notice now also applies to assemblies held ‘in pedestrian areas’ or those that ‘obstruct movement.’ Notably, the Ministry of Internal Affairs has the authority to review the assembly’s location, timing, or route within three days of receiving the notice and issue binding instructions if the assembly poses a risk to unobstructed pedestrian movement.

Strict sanctions under Georgia’s Code of Administrative Offenses (https://tinyurl.com/mr2jn63k) have been established for violations of this procedure or for deliberately obstructing pedestrian movement, which, except in legally defined exceptional cases, include administrative detention of participants and organizers. At the same time, the grounds for issuing instructions and intervening in the exercise of rights are broadly defined.

Given such vague legislative provisions, the Public Defender emphasizes that the Ministry of Internal Affairs must adhere to strict standards of necessity and proportionality when interfering with assembly rights. The Ministry must not restrict the rights of peaceful protesters when the inconvenience caused to pedestrians, alternative routes, number of participants, and form of the assembly do not reach a sufficient level of severity.

The Ombudsman notes that it remains unclear when a protest on a sidewalk could legitimately justify interference, especially since the exercise of the right usually occurs over a short period. Broadly formulated legislative provisions should not be applied in a way that makes holding an assembly practically dependent on prior approval, which is directly prohibited by Article 21 of the Constitution of Georgia.

In this regard, the Ombudsman refers to the approach of the European Court of Human Rights, which holds that regulations imposing a prior notice obligation should not become a hidden barrier to the exercise of assembly rights. OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission guidelines on freedom of assembly state that enforcement of such norms should not be an end in itself; failure to provide notice should not automatically render an assembly unlawful, nor justify interference with participants’ rights or dispersal.

The Public Defender emphasizes that, by its nature, an assembly may cause some disruption to normal life, but such disruption must be tolerated by authorities except in cases where it excessively harms the rights or interests of others.”