Amendments to be made to the Law of Georgia on Corruption do not meet the requirements of the 12-point plan of the European Union

The Democracy Research Institute submitted opinions to the Legal Issues Committee of the Parliament of Georgia, parliamentary factions and political groups relating to the legislative amendments drafted by the ruling party in relation to the anti-corruption agency.

On October 26, 2022, the Legal Issues Committee of the Parliament of Georgia, within the framework of the legislative initiative, presented draft legislative amendments, which serve to "promote fight against corruption and institutionally strengthen anti-corruption activities and fulfill one of the priority tasks defined by the European Commission for Georgia to acquire EU candidate status."[1]

According to the evaluation document of the European Commission, despite the fact that Georgia has successfully dealt with the prevention/investigation of low- and medium-level corruption, the following issues need to be improved/refined:

  • The area of ​​coverage of the law relating to the submission of assets declarations by officials should be expanded. The monitoring of the submission of assets declarations needs to be
  • The whistleblower protection mechanism needs to be strengthened.
  • There is no anti-corruption agency in Georgia that would independently investigate cases of conflict of interest, verify declared incomes, audit the expenses of political parties and protect whistleblowers.
  • Administrative capacity for controlling party financing and election campaign finances should be strengthened.
  • There is no specialized investigative, criminal or judicial body responsible for combating
  • The evaluation emphasizes the problematic nature of the Anti-Corruption Agency of the State Security Service and the absence of a new national anti-corruption strategy and action plan for 2021-2022, which is caused by the fact that the Anti-Corruption Council has not held meetings after 2019.
  • The European Commission notes at the end of the recommendation relating to the fight against corruption that the State should do more to combat the high-level corruption.[2]

In order for the task defined by the European Commission to be considered implemented, the package of legislative proposals initiated in the Parliament of Georgia should address the problems for which the mentioned recommendation was issued.

Unfortunately, the legislative initiative does not even formally address the issue of assets declarations of officials, protection of whistleblowers, strengthening of administrative capacity to monitor party financing and election campaign finances, creation of a specialized investigative, criminal or judicial body responsible for combating corruption or taking effective steps to fight against high-level corruption.

Instead of the creation of an independent anti-corruption agency that would have covered all key anti-corruption functions and/or would have been a specialized investigative institution responsible for combating corruption, the draft law, which has been adopted in two readings, proposes the creation of a completely non-functional new body - the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which duplicates the functions of the already existing Interagency Anti-Corruption Council and is limited to the determination of general anti-corruption policy.

According to the assessment of the Democracy Research Institute, the creation of a new body equipped with functions similar to the already existing Anti-Corruption Council will lead to the irrational spending of the state budget.

The Democracy Research Institute calls on the Parliament of Georgia to return to the consideration of the draft law initiated by the Lelo party relating to the national anti-corruption agency and to ensure the creation of an independent, apolitical body with high-quality accountability, transparency and openness, which will be equipped with all the mandates to combat corruption.


[1] Explanatory note of the draft law on making amendments to the Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Institutions, p. 1, available at

[2] Ibid. pp. 8-9