Anti-Corruption Bureau in Georgia: Policies and Practice Affecting Civil Society
PUBLISHED: JANUARY 2025
In September 2024, the Georgian Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) designated two prominent, pro-EU civil society organizations as “persons with a declared electoral goal,” effectively reclassifying them as being similar to political parties. This designation meant that the two organizations were prevented from registering as observers for the 2024 elections, monitoring the electoral campaign, and conducting other activities relating to the electoral process.
Although the ACB eventually repealed these decisions in October 2024 at the urging of the Prime Minister, Georgian CSOs remain concerned that similar designations will be made against other organizations in the future as a means of restricting their activities. Restrictions that come with the designation include:
- Limitations on participation in the electoral process;
- Restricted access to funds, since Georgian law prohibits political parties and similar entities from receiving certain funding, including from all foreign sources and some local sources;
- Limitation on activities, including the supply of goods or services at a “favorable condition” or “free of charge,” which could be interpreted to prohibit CSOs from serving their beneficiaries;
- Additional financial reporting obligations, including shorter deadlines and burdensome declarations; and
- The imposition of penalties, fines and property seizures without a court order.
These concerns are only heightened given Georgia’s recent adoption of the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, which many CSOs and international organizations regard as negatively affecting civic freedoms in the country.
In this Analysis, ICNL and ECNL review Georgia’s obligations under international law and European Union standards, outline the potential impact of the ACB’s decisions on Georgia’s civil society, and analyze the ACB decisions’ compliance with international standards. The Analysis concludes that the ACB’s recent decisions were restrictive, unfounded and not compliant with Georgia’s obligations under international law.
