On May 29, 2024, the Parliament passed [1] amendments to the Law on Combatting Corruption and associated legislative proposals during its third reading. These alterations mark a notable step backwards.

The legislative package proposed by the parliamentary majority members aims to address a recommendation issued by the European Commission to Georgia on November 8, 2023, as stated in the explanatory note [2] accompanying the bill [3]. Among the nine priorities [4] for opening accession negotiations with the European Union, one called for enhancing the effectiveness of the Anti-corruption Bureau and further improving its institutional independence and impartiality.

On the contrary, these amendments disregard critical recommendations set out by the European Commission [4] and the Venice Commission [5], including the appointment of the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau by the Parliament and granting the Bureau investigative authority. Moreover, the amendments worsen existing regulations in several aspects, raising concerns about their compatibility [6] with the Constitution. In some cases, the amendments include provisions that deviate from recommendations by both the European Commission and the Venice Commission, exacerbating current practices.

Amendments adopted in the third reading that merit close examination:

• Revoking the registration of a political party

One of the accompanying projects in the package involved amendments to the organic law of Georgia on Political Associations of Citizens. Following the changes [7], upon the appeal of the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, it is viable now to suspend a political party by revoking its registration. According to the provisions adopted in the third reading, if a party fails to submit a financial declaration to the Bureau within two calendar years, or if the declaration shows zero income and expenses for two consecutive years, the LEPL National Agency of the Public Registry is authorized to revoke the registration of the party upon the request of the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

According to the Constitution of Georgia, the Constitutional Court holds an exclusive right to suspend a political party only in cases when a party aims to overthrow or forcibly change the constitutional order of Georgia, infringe on the independence, or violate the territorial integrity of the country, or that propagates war or violence or incites national, ethnic, provincial, religious or social strife.

Consequently, the suspension of a political party by an administrative body is deemed inadmissible as its form and content contradict the Constitution, especially based on amendments adopted in the third reading – not submitting an asset declaration for two years or when the party reports zero income and expenses for two consecutive years.

Furthermore, the Anti-Corruption Bureau has been authorized to conduct the following “special administrative proceedings”: the questioning of individuals, interrogation of individuals before a magistrate judge, and requesting information (including personal data and special category personal data) from public institutions, individuals, and legal entities. The purpose and necessity of this change raise questions that require a well-reasoned response from the authorities. This is particularly critical given the European Commission and the Venice Commission’s call for establishing robust guarantees to ensure the independence and political neutrality of the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

• Access to special categories of personal data

According to the adopted amendments, the Anti-Corruption Bureau has the discretion to request information from public institutions, individuals, and legal entities, including special categories of personal data and confidential information.

Special categories of data include information [8] on an individual’s racial or ethnic origin, political views, religious or philosophical beliefs, membership in professional organizations, state of health, and sexual life, among other things.

This change was not included in the originally initiated version, and consequently, the need for the amendment is not elaborated in the explanatory note.

• Restricting the publicity of asset declarations

In line with the amended regulations [9], should an official's asset declaration be found to contain inaccuracies, the Anti-Corruption Bureau is authorized to inform the official within one month of submission. Subsequently, a further one-month period is allocated for the rectification of any errors identified. Subsequently, the Bureau has been authorized to withhold publication of an official’s asset declaration for this duration and to refuse disclosure in response to an FOI request.

This amendment should unequivocally be viewed as a step backwards, as restricting the publicity of asset declarations runs against international best practices.

• Exemption for the Anti-Corruption Bureau

According to the amendment [10] to the Law on Legal Entities under Public Law, the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau no longer requires government approval to determine the Bureau’s budget, staffing, salary fund, bonus pay, fuel procurement, and communication cost limits.

• Transfer of new powers to the Anti-Corruption Bureau

According to the regulation [11] of the LEPL Civil Service Bureau, one of its functions was to “develop and monitor the implementation of programs and mechanisms promoting ethics, integrity, and accountability in the public service.” Per the revised law, the Anti-Corruption Bureau will “develop and implement programs addressing ethics, integrity, and accountability in the public service, as well as study and consolidate the practice of adherence to ethical norms by public servants and formulate respective recommendations.”

 *Read more about the anti-corruption reforms and initiated amendments in response to the recommendations of the European Commission and the Venice Commission here [12].