Venice Commission: Restrictions Imposed by Party Ban Law Are Disproportionate

The Venice Commission on October 13 published an opinion on legislation related to the ban of political parties in Georgia. According to the Commission's assessment, the restrictions imposed on persons associated with banned parties are disproportionate and unjustified, threaten political pluralism and contradict international standards of democracy and pluralism. The Commission considers that the legislation adopted to protect the constitutional order may itself pose a serious threat to the constitution.

The opinion concerns amendments made on October 16, 2025 to the organic law "On Political Associations of Citizens", Article 381 of the Criminal Code and related legislation. They provide for the imposition of legal consequences on persons associated with banned parties.

According to the Commission, there is no evidence that the package adopted in October 2025 was driven by the necessity of defending democracy, in the exceptional circumstance when democracy has to defend itself. The Commission notes that under international standards, banning a party and related sanctions, including against individual members of the party, may be justified only in strictly limited cases, while observing the requirements of a legitimate aim and proportionality.

According to the opinion, amendments to the organic law on the Constitutional Court grant the court the authority to decide on imposing restrictions on persons "associated" with banned parties. According to the Commission's assessment, these powers are not provided for either by Article 19 of this law or by Paragraph 4 of Article 60 of the Constitution. The Constitution defines the competence of the Constitutional Court, while the organic law regulates the procedure. The Commission notes that the authorities should properly examine the concern that the amendments expand the powers of the court without constitutional changes. At the same time, it emphasizes that assessing the constitutionality of legal amendments does not fall within its competence.

The restrictions provided for by the amendments include a ban on founding, leading or joining a party, limits on activities in the executive or supervisory bodies of a party, a ban on holding public or political office, and restrictions on leading constitutional bodies and exercising passive electoral rights in general elections. According to the opinion, these restrictions cause serious concern from the standpoint of international human rights standards.

The Commission considers that the legal framework fails to ensure clarity and foreseeability, as key concepts, including the concept of a person "associated" with a banned party, are formulated too broadly and vaguely. This grants the authorities excessive discretion. The restrictions will take effect as a result of a party ban, without individual assessment of each person's conduct, responsibility and intent, which creates a risk that persons may be held responsible solely because of their connection to a specific party.

The combination of restrictions is also considered problematic: simultaneous exclusion from parties, electoral participation, public office and representative mandates may damage an essential part of political rights. The legislation does not provide for clear time limits for restrictions or effective review mechanisms. Removing candidates from the electoral process or terminating mandates, especially through accelerated procedures during election periods, may distort electoral competition and the freedom of voters' choice.

In the Commission's final assessment, the legislation does not serve its declared aim: protecting the constitutional order from violent change, preventing threats to independence and territorial integrity, war propaganda, violence and the incitement of national, regional, religious or social hatred. Instead, in the Commission's view, the legislation imposes disproportionate and unjustified restrictions on citizens' political freedom and hinders the formation and existence of political opposition.

The Commission also draws attention to the combined effect of the amendments. According to it, the latest amendments expanded the grounds for banning parties and barred for eight years any person working for a "foreign agent" from joining a political party or an "organization with declared party-political aims".

"Instead of protecting the constitutional order, this legislation therefore poses a threat of serious harm to it," the opinion states.

The Venice Commission expresses regret that the Georgian authorities did not show a willingness to cooperate with it during the preparation of the opinion. The Commission states that it remains ready for dialogue and also offers further assistance on this issue to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.