Georgia

In addition to some ethics provisions in the Law of Georgia on Public Service, the main regulation on ethics in Georgia is the Decree of the Government on Ethics and Rules of Conduct in a Public Institution. The law is applicable to public employees (both central and municipal), which includes career public servants, as well as contract-based employees. According to Article 85 of the Law on Civil Service, violation of the code of ethics is ground for disciplinary action – resulting in a warning, salary deduction and contract termination. At the same time, it is important for local authorities to adopt relevant codes of ethics tailored to their needs together with effective enforcement mechanisms.

A Guideline to Ethics and Rules of Conduct of Public Employees was developed by the Civil Service Bureau of Georgia in 2015. It contains practical information on cases and regulations related to ethics, including organisational culture, revolving door, nepotism, public procurement, disciplinary sanctions, public oversight, and whistle-blower protection. Although the document has not been adopted by an official legal act, it serves as a useful practical tool for employees. As the Code of ethics for public employees was adopted after the development of the Guideline, it is necessary to update the latter based on the novelties of the Code. Although the Guideline has not been updated since 2015, the commentary of the government decree on public ethics was adopted in 2018.

Service delivery is one of the integral parts of the ongoing public administration reform in Georgia. It aims to increase the quality and access to public services both at the central and local levels. However, as the 2019 results of the National Assessment of Georgian Municipalities (LSG Index) demonstrated, one-third of Georgian municipalities do not proactively provide information to their citizens about municipal services through their websites. In addition, there are no established complaints mechanisms that would allow citizens to provide feedback on the quality of public services. All citizens have the possibility to communicate with public agencies, but the complaints mechanism is not institutionalised. An established channel for complaints will have a large influence on the quality of public services and on the accountability of the institution itself. It will also serve as an opportunity for mayors to tailor the services of the municipal institution to the needs of the citizens.

Supporting the development of public services that are more responsive and accountable to people at national as well as at local level is another key element of OGP. Commitments envisaged under the OGP Action Plans enable citizens to access information and engage in the monitoring of the process and outcomes of the activities of central and local authorities. Supporting the development of modern technologies and electronic mechanisms for higher civic engagement and public scrutiny undoubtedly serve as important tools for strengthening openness and efficiency in the public administration.

There is no national or internal regulation on complaints mechanisms for services provided by public institutions; however, it is not necessary to have national legislation in order to establish simple and sustainable tools that would provide citizens with a possibility to provide their feedback on the delivery of public services. If an effective mechanism is developed in the municipality, it can have a positive effect on the level and quality of public participation, since citizens will have a chance to serve as agents of change and their desire to participate in local decision-making might increase.

No guidelines exist on providing feedback to citizens about the complaints voiced regarding public services; nevertheless, there is a growing necessity to establish a mechanism that provides a systemic approach for measuring public attitudes on municipal services. In this regard, the first steps taken by the municipality should include analysis of existing municipal services, establishment of internal regulations that provide for a possibility of a systematic overview and evaluation of service delivery and establishment of transparent and efficient communication tools, including electronic tools for engaging with citizens about their attitudes towards local service delivery quality. It is important to consider the development of a periodic survey system that would allow local public officials to analyse the service delivery system through public opinion research. Similar studies may include the Citizen Satisfaction Survey with Public Services in Georgia, commissioned by UNDP Georgia in 2015 and 2017. Moreover, collaborating with partner municipalities can be a useful tool in bringing together resources and providing a comparative analysis of what mechanisms are working in which municipality.

The necessity of important reforms in this direction is demonstrated by the Decentralisation Strategy 2020-2025, which among other activities envisages the development of common minimal standards for municipal services.

• Reliability of Public Services: Ensuring Citizens’ Rights from the OECD addresses citizens’ rights to be heard using the legal framework established by state institutions.
• OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Public Service Leadership and Capability, OECD/LEGAL/0445 – the recommendation has 14 principles and defines the responsiveness of public service.
• How to make a complaint at EU level by European Commission is a pamphlet outlining the opportunity for citizens to contact and submit a complaint to the European Commission.
• Guidance developed by the international institutions on the protection of citizens’ rights during the implementation of a business project includes the ADB‘s Building Capacity for Grievance Redress Mechanisms.

Public agencies in Georgia, as well as civil society organisations, often have legal counsellors who are giving advice to the citizens regarding the ways for presenting the complaint and methods for seeking the redress.

The Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Institutions does not specify who can be a whistle-blower. Although the government decree on the definition of general rules of ethics and conduct in public institutions defines a whistle-blower, it does not specify whether a whistle-blower must be a public servant, however, the fact of disclosure must be related to public service.^[ii] Disclosure may be made anonymously.

Georgian legislation protects whistle-blowers from the following actions:^[iii]

●               Intimidation, harassment, coercion, humiliation, moral or material harm, abuse or threat of violence, discrimination or other unlawful acts against a whistle-blower or their close relative.

●               Initiation of administrative or civil proceedings or criminal proceedings against the whistle-blower and imposition of liability on them, as well as application of coercive measures against them due to the circumstances related to the fact of disclosure.

According to the law, in case of application of the above-mentioned measures against the whistle-blower, the public institution has to prove that it is not related to the fact of disclosure and there is a ground for this provided by the legislation of Georgia.^[iv] The whistle-blower enjoys safeguards whether the information disclosed as a result of the disclosure is true or false given that the whistle-blower was not and could not have known in advance that the information was incorrect and that their purpose is not to obtain a personal gain.

There is no guideline generally issued for civil servants or specifically for local governments on whistle-blowing. The whistle-blowing online platform - offers some explanations and a ‘frequently asked questions’ tab explaining who can be a whistle-blower, what can be reported, and how.

Disclosure of asset declarations is a mechanism that is important for the prevention of corruption and conflict of interests in Georgia. A wide range of public officials submit asset declarations, which are publicly available on a specially designed website. Citizens are able to look at the financial interests of public officials and provide public oversight on potential cases of conflict.

The Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Institutions requires public officials to submit asset declarations annually and for certain positions even after leaving public office. The list of the officials required to submit asset declarations is provided in the law itself.^[i]

In 2017, a system for monitoring asset declarations was established through a government decree and includes the following monitoring mechanisms:

1. Random selection of declarations by a machine;
2. Selection of “high risk” declarations by a special committee (which also includes non-governmental organisations) established annually under the Civil Service Bureau; and,
3. Written request including reasonable doubt about a possible infraction.

According to the abovementioned Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Institutions, failure to submit an official's asset declaration within the time limit set by the Law is subject to a fine in the amount of GEL 1 000. In the case of providing incorrect information in the declaration, an official will be subject to a fine in the amount 20% of their official salary, but not less than GEL 500. In the case of minor violation regarding the declaration, an official will be given a warning.

The Civil Service Bureau of Georgia is the agency that is entrusted with the administration, publication and monitoring of asset declarations.

The Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Institutions itself provides instructions on how public officials must submit the declarations. Within two months of assuming office, public officials are required to submit asset declarations to the Civil Service Bureau, including assets and financial interests belonging to the officials and the members of their families – real estate, movable assets exceeding GEL 10 000, stocks, bank deposits, cash exceeding GEL 4 000, contractual receivables exceeding GEL 3 000 and obligations exceeding GEL 5 000, gifts exceeding GEL 500, and contracts with subjects exceeding GEL 10 000. Officials must re-submit declarations annually and one year after leaving office. The instructions for the monitoring of asset declarations are also adopted by Government Decree and outline detailed procedures on how to monitor the declarations. In addition, the Civil Service Bureau has published comparative research on the Rules of Submitting Asset Declarations in the United States and Georgia.

• Resolution 59 of the UN General Assembly adopted in 1946, states that “freedom of information is a fundamental human right”, and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that the fundamental right of freedom of expression encompasses the freedom to “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

Access to information is a fundamental human right recognised and guaranteed by state institutions and civil society organisations in Georgia. The right to access public information is enshrined both in Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia^[i] and in Chapter III of the General Administrative Code of Georgia. Access to information is one of the most important transparency tools that currently exist in Georgia; however, according to a public services satisfaction survey, only 2% of citizens had requested information from a public institution in 2017.

While transparency and access to information are crucial towards promoting civic engagement and can contribute to the principles of good governance, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Action Plan of Georgia 2018-2019 covered commitments ensuring unhindered citizen access to public information at local level.

Proactive disclosure of public information is one of the most significant commitments taken by Georgia within the framework of the OGP. The commitments taken by municipalities under OGP action plans, supporting the development of electronic mechanisms and ensuring publication of information in easy-to-use formats ensure raised transparency and accountability of local authorities. It is noteworthy that according to the National Assessment of Georgian of Municipalities in 2019, the overall results of evaluation of Georgian municipalities were quite low. On the scale of 0% to 100%, the average score of all municipalities was only 28% (25% for city halls / municipal administrations and 31% for municipal councils).

In this regard, for the purpose of increasing openness and citizen access to public information at local level, the Tbilisi OGP Action Plan 2018-2020 included an improvement of municipal electronic resources by creating an Open Data Portal of Tbilisi City Hall. Particularly, the Commitment 5 of the Tbilisi OGP Action Plan 2018-2020 aims at updating the format of the Tbilisi City Hall webpage, ensuring easier access to public data for citizens. In order to increase citizen involvement in decision-making processes at local level, the new version of the Tbilisi City Hall webpage offers a proactive publication portal and the electronic tool for subscribing to public information. ^[ii]

Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia states that every citizen of Georgia has a right to access official documents stored in public institutions, if it does not contain secret, personal or commercial information. Chapter III of the General Administrative Code of Georgia outlines procedures for requesting information from a public agency (both central and municipal). According to the Code, public information has to be disclosed immediately or no later than 10 calendar days, in cases where it requires additional efforts. If the Freedom of Information (FOI) request is denied, individuals have a right to appeal the decision internally and afterwards to the court within 30 days of receiving the decision.

Since 2013, central and municipal public agencies have introduced regulations for proactive disclosure of public information, outlining the list of necessary information that has to be disclosed (on the webpage of the agency) and periodically renewed.

Currently, there are no unified official guidelines on access to information in Georgia. Although websites of individual public agencies provide brief instructions on how to request public information, they mainly duplicate the requirements of the law. Nevertheless, such guidelines have been produced by civil society and they provide citizens with information on the nature of public information, request procedures, legal means of protecting the right and practical recommendations on access to information. Some of the recommendations of the guidelines include:

• Adopting internal regulations for the management of public information;
• Installation of electronic management systems;
• Establishment of electronic systems enabling electronic request of public information;
• Analysis of information request trends, and;
• Increasing the role of Freedom of Information Officers in public institutions.

In Georgia, open data is generated by both public institutions and civil society organisations. Nevertheless, production of open data is still fragmented, with limited institutions and data available in a machine-readable format. The Government of Georgia has taken some steps towards ensuring the availability of open data, for example, the establishment of an open data portal. The portal contains the information of various public institutions in an open data format, including on procurement, public spending, and policy. The portal is administered by a subordinate agency of the Ministry of Justice, the Legal Entity under Public Law (LEPL) Digital Governance Agency (previously, Data Exchange Agency). However, since public institutions are not obligated to place databases owned by them on the portal, only 173 datasets have been published over the past four years.

Open data has started to enable civil society and citizens to use the information for analytical purposes and to create innovative tools for broader public use; however, both the availability and awareness of open data is low, which limits its utilisation.

Over the past two years, municipalities have taken several steps to improve open data collection and publication practices. In particular, Akhaltsikhe and Kutaisi municipalities elaborated and adopted Open Data Strategies for 2019-2020,^[i] while other six municipalities (Gori, Lagodekhi, Ozurgeti, Senaki, Telavi and Zugdidi) plan to improve open data management practices by analysing the existing challenges, elaborating data management internal procedures and increasing qualification of public servants responsible for data processing and publication.^[ii]

Currently, there is no national or local legislation regarding the production and use of open data in Georgia. The new draft law on Freedom of Information, which is planned to be initiated in the Parliament of Georgia, is expected to introduce the definition of open data, based on which public institutions will be obligated to publish open data owned by them in open and machine-readable formats. The absence of common standards, however, does not mean that local authorities need a legal framework to start producing information in an open data format. Developing information in the form of open data is encouraged for greater transparency of local public institutions and does not rely on regulations.

There are no guidelines on open data that are produced by Georgian public institutions. Nevertheless, civil society organisations are working actively to increase availability of open data. In 2016, research on Access to Open Data in Georgia^[i] examined the availability and quality of open data in Georgia. It particular, it is recommended for local public institutions to:

• Shape and manage databases and registries in a way that will enable their publication on the open data portal;
• Ensure open data publication of databases related to education, social affairs, zoning, recreation, transportation, etc.;
• Increase the availability of open data through the national open data portal; and,
• Develop an internal manual and training module about the production and publication of open data.

A 2018 analysis of the access to and use of open data demonstrated that scarcity of available open public data is mostly attributed to the lack of a relevant legal framework, and the absence of common standards and effective enforcement mechanisms.

• Open Contracting Data Standard (OCDS), providing open data standard for publication of structured information on all stages of a contracting process: from planning to implementation.
• UNODC’s (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) Guidebook on anti-corruption in public procurement and the management of public finances, which provides good practices in ensuring compliance with article 9 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
• World Bank’s Annual Reports – Benchmarking Public Procurement, which have been assessing public procurement regulatory systems in different countries.

Along with the Constitution of Georgia, the main legislative acts in the area of public procurement in Georgia are the Law on Public Procurement,^[i] the Statute of the SPA approved by the Government of Georgia,^[ii] as well as international treaties and agreements. Procurement procedures determined by the World Bank, United Nations, EBRD, Asian Development Bank, KfW Development Bank and European Investment Bank may be applied when conducting public procurement, if these organisations are involved in the legal relations related to implementation of the procurement. The Law of Georgia on Public Procurement determines the general legal, organisational and economic principles for conducting public procurement. The SPA ensures rational expenditure of funds designated for state procurement, promotes healthy competition, ensures a fair and non-discriminatory approach to participants and takes relevant steps for the publicity of procurement information, inter alia through running and maintaining the Unified Electronic System of State Procurement. According to the legislation, dispute over the procurement process is heard by an independent and impartial Dispute Resolution Council, the purpose of which is to resolve cases in a timely, efficient and fair manner. The Council is not a subsidiary of any state entity and/or official.^[iii] At local level, the Mayors’ Offices adopt annual procurement plans, which are later approved by the SPA. Public procurement is conducted by the local financial-municipal departments via the online procurement system. The Mayors’ Offices are responsible to provide Municipal Councils with the report on the implementation of Procurement Plans on an annual basis.^[iv]

In order to facilitate the process of online procurement in Georgia, the SPA has developed an E-Procurement User Manual. The manual includes the step-by-step approach of the Unified Electronic System of State Procurement directed at suppliers, procuring entities as well as any other interested party at the central and local levels. The Guide for Donor Funds on Electronic Procurement Procedure (DEP) published by the SPA provides a detailed walk-through in the process of donor procurement. Moreover, the Guideline to Ethics and Rules of Conduct of Public Employees have been developed by the Civil Service Bureau of Georgia in 2018 containing practical information on various areas of public policy, including public procurement, disciplinary sanctions, public oversight, and whistle-blower protection.

A number of guiding documents on public procurement have also been produced by CSOs in Georgia. The Guidelines on COVID-19 Related Public Procurement provide relevant stakeholders at the central and local levels with practical information on the steps to be taken in the process of conducting procurement aimed at responding to the challenges caused by the pandemic. Moreover, the methodology of evaluating the level of public procurement transparency, the Transparent Public Procurement Rating (TPPR), includes indicators for evaluating the level of procurement transparency. According to the TPPR, the public procurement system in Georgia is evaluated with a score of 86.14%. Based on the evaluation, the central and local authorities can identify existing gaps and take relevant steps to tackle them. The National Assessment of Georgian Municipalities (LSG Index) includes the aspect of proactive publication of the information on public procurement, thus providing municipalities with guidance on the relevant information to be published on their websites.

The State Audit Office of Georgia (SAO) is an institutionally independent public agency that provides oversight over the use of public funds and the efficiency of the work of public institutions. The functional and financial independence of the SAO are guaranteed under the law and it provides significant input in ensuring transparency, accountability and integrity of public institutions.

• The Congress Resolution 402 (2016) on “The misuse of administrative resources during electoral processes”;
• The Guidelines and report on the financing of political parties (Council of Europe, Venice Commission, 2001);
• The Compilation of Venice Commission Opinions and Reports concerning Political Parties (Council of Europe, Venice Commission, 2013);
• The Recommendation Rec(2003)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on common rules against corruption in the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns.

Provisions on political party financing are present mainly in two legal acts in Georgia: the Organic Law of Georgia on Political Unions of Citizens (the LPUC) and the Election Code of Georgia (EC). This causes discrepancies in terminology between the acts, ambiguity of the scope of the acts, and extensive referencing between them. International observers to the elections often refer to the blurring of the line between the state and political parties, which is further strengthened by the provision of the Election Code allowing for the unlimited campaigning by high-level public officials. In addition to that the sanction for misuses of the administrative resources lacks effectiveness as the fine is quite low (approximately EUR 800). Civil society representatives observing elections often complain about the misuse of financial, legislative and institutional administrative resources during election campaigns.

The rules governing the funding of political parties are found in the Organic Law of Georgia on Political Unions of Citizens (the LPUC) mentioned above. The LPUC regulates the establishment of parties, their funding and financial management and, as well as the termination of their activities. It foresees a mixed system of funding in which political parties are provided with state funding and may finance their activities from certain private sources. In addition, the Election Code contains provisions on the funding of election campaigns of political parties and other election candidates.

The State Auditor of Georgia approved a set of guidelines on the issues related to political party financing exist. For instance, decree No. 142/37 of the General Auditor of 17 August 2012 provides for the approved forms and instructions on the financial reporting with the purpose of ensuring transparency in the financing of political activities. The SAO has purchased the 2017 International Valuation Standards in the Georgian language from the Georgian Institution of Property Evaluation Experts and on its basis approved the decree of the Auditor General outlining the standards and methodology to be used for valuing in-kind donations, including non-monetary goods and services which do not have an observable market value and voluntary work performed by professionals.

Policymaking at the central and local levels in Georgia has elements of transparency and citizen openness, but openness is often restricted to specific policy processes. Since a uniform legal framework for open policymaking is absent in Georgia; the quality of transparency and citizen participation is different in all central and local public institutions. Transparent, participatory and collaborative policymaking is critically important for the successful implementation of the Public Administration Reform and represents one of its key pillars. In recent years, open policymaking has demonstrated significant success, since both citizens and representatives of public institutions saw the benefit of co-creating policies together. In this regard, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) had a transformative effect on central and local policymaking approaches. After the OGP National Action Plans were successfully co-created by civil society and public institutions, it became evident that the experience could be applied to the local level, paving way to the OGP Sub-National Initiative, which aims to bring open government to the local level. In order to strengthen the co-creation process and secure implementation of the ambitious commitments throughout the country, the elaboration of OGP commitments at national as well as local level involves the active participation of local and civil actors.

The Local Self-Government Code of Georgia envisages forms of open policymaking such as a general assembly of a settlement; a petition; a Council of Civil Advisors; participation in the sessions of the municipal council and the sessions of its commission; hearing reports on the work performed by the Mayor of the municipality and by a member of the municipal council.^[ii]

The experience accumulated in OGP has demonstrated that there is a need for establishing a permanent open government mechanism inside the municipalities of Georgia. Taking into account the success that was achieved in piloting the first OGP Sub-National Action Plan in 2017, it became evident that open government initiatives work successfully not only on the central level but also on the local level. Therefore, it is recommended to use the existing citizen engagement infrastructure, such as the Council of Civil Advisors, to start developing local OGP action plans. These action plans are created with a strong emphasis on developing measurable commitments aimed at increasing transparency and accountability, preventing corruption, improving public service delivery and promoting innovation in local self-government.

Participatory budgeting is a vital tool in ensuring citizen engagement in the decision-making process; however, the executive, legislative and local branches of the government need to take an additional step in improving the legislative framework and infrastructure. Limited mechanisms for participatory budgeting currently exist in Georgia. Although the public is duly informed about the budgetary process and draft documents are systematically uploaded on the webpages of the Ministry of Finance and certain local authorities, participatory budgeting is still on a tokenistic level – meaning that the public is informed but does not have any power to influence decision-making. Meaningful participatory budgeting will increase the communication between the local government and the population and will also positively affect public trust in local institutions. Having a possibility to plan the local budget will cultivate public scrutiny in the spending process, which will improve public oversight and accountability in the municipality.

As a positive development, several municipalities have started the development of participatory budgeting practices over the past years. As of 2019, nine municipalities are implementing participatory budgeting: Batumi, Ozurgeti, Zugdidi, Mestia, Tskaltubo, Kutaisi, Akhaltsikhe, Gori and Sighnaghi. Based on the initiative, a particular amount of money is considered in the municipal budget for public initiatives. Citizens and initiative groups are enabled to submit their ideas to a particular city hall and a special committee decides which initiative to support.

Recognising participation as an important tool to ensure transparency in budgeting processes, Government of Georgia’s OGP Action Plans consider the development of institutional mechanisms necessary for participatory budgeting schemes. The main objective of the commitments envisaged under both 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 Action Plans is to ensure a better management of public resources through a higher citizen engagement in the budgetary processes. Open government principles commit to raise budget transparency by increasing civil participation through technology and innovation.

Currently, there is no legislation that expressly regulates participatory budgeting in Georgia. The current system does not make it expressly possible to allocate a certain percentage of the budget according to the priorities identified by the citizens. However, a few municipalities committed themselves to develop such a participatory mechanism and allocated a particular amount of financial resources in their annual budgets. Also, the participation of the public in the budgetary process is made possible by public meetings/discussions during the elaboration of the budget. According to Article 91 of the Local Self-Government Code, the Mayor submits the draft budget to the City Assembly before 15 November of each year. The City Assembly then has a 5-day period to release the draft budget for public discussion and then returns the document to the City Mayor with remarks before 25 November. The Mayor returns the revised budget to the City Assembly before December 10, which is then adopted before the end of the year. According to the legislation, there are two windows, from November 20 to November 25 and then from December 10 to December 31 to publicly discuss and adopt the budget. Budgetary consultations and the above-mentioned timeframe are a useful opportunity for mayors to understand local needs and reflect the priorities of the citizens in the municipal budget annually.

With the support of development partners, the Ministry of Finance has developed a Citizen’s Guide for state budgets. The guide includes important information about the budgetary process, main fiscal procedures in Georgia, state budget priorities, expenditures, and a midterm fiscal policy document overview. Although it has not been adopted through a legal act, the Citizen’s Guide is an important source of information about the budgetary process in Georgia.

In addition, with the support of the German Agency for International Co-operation (GIZ) a detailed guidebook on participatory budgeting was prepared, which outlines the essence, aim, historical background, international best practices, basic models, regulatory frameworks, as well as the ways, means and tools for participatory budgeting. The guidebook can be useful not only for local authorities, but also for other stakeholders to effectively contribute to the participatory budgeting process.

Since public attitudes and priorities vary among different groups and are also different from year to year, it is important to establish a sustainable, efficient and inclusive consultation process that has a foundation in internal regulations of the municipal public institutions.

There are no national guidelines with regard to conducting public consultations in Georgia; however, the Policy Planning System Reform Strategy lists public consultations as one of the criteria for evaluating the quality of policy documents.

On 20 December 2019, the Government of Georgia adopted the Decree #629 on the Rules of Development, Monitoring and Evaluation of Public Policy Documents. Among other topics, the decree includes the description of public policy development stages and the regulations to ensure the participation of relevant stakeholders in the process. The rules came into force on 1 January 2021. Even though the document is meant to positively change the situation, it does not reflect high standards of citizen participation. Namely, the rules only make it mandatory to ensure citizen participation in policy development after the draft of a policy document is elaborated, while at relatively early stages the citizen engagement only has a recommendatory character.

It is important to activate existing tools of citizen participation and public consultations in the municipalities of Georgia. In particular, engaging the public in policy consultations can be enabled through the empowerment of the Council of Civil Advisors, increasing awareness about the petitions mechanism, increasing access to public information and encouraging citizens to participate in the hearings of Municipal Councils. It is recommended to adopt an internal mechanism that will be aimed at assessing existing levels and practices of public consultations and developing specific commitments that will address the identified challenges.

• The European Commission for democracy through law (Venice commission), code of good practice on referendums – provides the principles of holding referendums and practical advice on how to implement those principles.
• The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on the Code of Good Practice on Referendums – invites public authorities in the member states to be guided by the Code of Good Practice on Referendums.
• The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, Resolution 472 (2021) on Holding referendums at local level – provides guidelines for member States to use local referendums responsibly and according to Council of Europe standards,
• UN Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions; Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

In Georgia a referendum can only be held on the whole territory of the country. No local referenda are allowed by law.

A referendum is held to finally resolve particularly important state issues and may be appointed by the President of Georgia requiring the signature of the Prime Minister of Georgia, unless the referendum is convened at the request of the Government of Georgia. The President of Georgia has the right to call a referendum at the request of the Parliament of Georgia, the Government of Georgia or at least 200,000 voters.

According to the law, the issue presented in the referendum is considered supported by the voters if more than half of the participants voted in favour. The decision made as a result of the referendum can be changed or revoked only by referendum. The Constitutional Court of Georgia has the right to invalidate the results of the referendum in accordance with the rules established by law.

Another form of referenda in Georgia is the advisory referendum or “plebiscite”, which is regulated in the same way as the referendum with the exception that the result is not legally binding for a government.

The law of Georgia on referendum regulates the rules and procedures of holding referenda and plebiscites in Georgia. According to the law a referendum may not be held:

• To pass or repeal a law;
• On amnesty or pardon;
• On the ratification or denunciation of an international treaty;
• On an issue that provides for the restriction of fundamental human rights.

Disputes related to the norm regulating the referendum and the constitutionality of the referendum conducted or to be conducted is considered by the Constitutional Court of Georgia on the basis of the Organic Law.

The webpage of the Central Election Commission provides some general information on referenda – mainly referring to the existing legal provisions. There are no guidelines or handbooks on the issue.

In 2020, 33 instances of receiving/requesting a bribe were registered by law-enforcement agencies out of which in 55% of cases investigation was concluded, compared with 63 registered cases in 2019 out of which 41% were successfully pursued. As for offering/giving a bribe, nine cases were registered and six were successfully pursued in 2021, compared with 10 registered and six successfully pursued cases in 2019.

According to the Business Bribery Risk Index published by Trace International, in 2020 Georgia was ranked 28th among 200 countries, which determines business-related corruption risks. The risk score remained the same as that of 2019, but worsened compared to 2017, when Georgia was ranked 25th among 200 countries with the risk score of 23 out of 100. Out of four assessed areas (Opportunity, Deterrence, Transparency, Oversight), the worst situation was observed in Georgia in terms of deterrence of corruption.

According to the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index published in January 2021 by Transparency International, Georgia was ranked 45th out of 180 countries with the score of 56. The index worsened compared to the previous years as in 2018 Georgia was in 41st place with the score of 58.

Despite positive trends with regard to petty corruption, public opinion polls show that Georgian citizens consider complex forms of corruption a challenge. In particular, 63% of Georgian citizens think that abuse of power by public officials is common. As for the reasons behind the abuse of power by public officials, Georgians believe that their goals include employing family members and relatives (92%), protecting their own business (90%), embezzling public funds (81%), and getting bribes in exchange for “settling” problems (60%). In addition, as per the Caucasus Barometer results, 3% of respondents named corruption as the most important national problem in the country.

Crimes related to public office are regulated by Chapter 39 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. According to Article 338 of the Code, taking/requesting a bribe in a monetary or other form is punishable by imprisonment of six to 15 years, depending on the gravity and circumstances of the crime. It is important to observe that in this article aggravating circumstances are considered to be the following: holding high public office, taking a large sum (over 10 000 Georgian Lari (GEL)), group intent, repetition of the offence, multiple instances, receiving a bribe through extortion or by an organised group.

According to Article 339 of the Criminal Code, the punishment for offering/giving a bribe may be a fine, community service, house arrest or imprisonment, also depending on aggravating circumstances such as facilitating another criminal act or committing a group act.

Although conflict of interest represents a significant challenge for the Georgian integrity system, there is practically no administrative data related to such instances. Civil society organisations and investigative media often display cases of possible conflict of interest; however, law enforcement agencies fail to follow up on such cases.

Despite the fact that there are no public perception surveys related to conflict of interest in Georgia, there has been significant public interest to address these challenges. Specifically, the scope of the Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Institutions has been expanded over the years and now covers various representatives of central, municipal, legislative, judicial and independent public agencies. Besides mayors, their deputies and heads of the structural units of city halls are also regarded as public officials according to the Local Self-Government Code,^[i] which makes them subject to the regulations of the Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Institutions.

In addition, in 2017 a monitoring mechanism of asset declarations was established. The electronic system for randomly selecting declarations was developed and the first commission for monitoring of asset declarations was set up. The commission selects declarations of high officials to be monitored in addition to those selected randomly by a machine. The composition of the commission is determined by the head of the Civil Service Bureau. Civil Servants may not be members of the Commission. Annual monitoring of asset declarations of high-ranking officials has been conducted since 2017.^[ii] The monitoring results and respective reports are available on the website of the Civil Service Bureau of Georgia.

In spite of the establishment of the monitoring mechanism of asset declaration and broadening the scope of the Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Institutions a number of challenges remain. There is no dedicated agency with the functions of policy development, oversight of the implementation of conflict of interest regulations, including the application of sanctions, methodological guidance, and individual counselling. Despite allegations brought to the public by the media and non-governmental organisations, there is no practice of sanctioning high officials for violation of conflict of interest rules.

In Georgia there is a special Law on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Institutions. The scope of the law extends to declaration of economic interests, as well as whistle-blower protection, receiving gifts, principles of public ethics, conflict of interests and corruption. Sanctions envisaged by this law are only administrative and include monetary fines (up to GEL 1 000) and disciplinary actions such as warning and contract termination. Conflict of interests of Georgian public officials is monitored by the Civil Service Bureau through a declaration monitoring system. The law on conflict of interest and corruption in civil service obliges civil servants to inform their superior on ad hoc conflicts of interest and with the superior’s written consent, a decision is made on conflict of interest in individual cases. A public servant has to declare the person related to them, who works in the same public institution where the public servant works, within one month from the appointment or election to the relevant position, and then before February 1 of each following calendar year.

The law does not provide for special regulations on MPs, judges, prosecutors, members of government, members of local and regional councils. The law, however, exempts MPs, president, prime-minister and members of parliaments and heads of governments of autonomous republics from declaring ad hoc conflicts of interest (Article 11.4). There are no special codes of ethics or other legal acts regulating conflict of interest for members of regional and local councils.

The Criminal Code of Georgia also provides for sanctions for accepting illegal gifts by a public official. According to Article 340 of the Code, such actions are punishable by a fine, community service, deprivation of the right to hold a position and/or imprisonment.

Data shows that embezzlement was the most frequently committed financial crime in Georgia, with 2,155 cases recorded from 2004 to 2014. During the mentioned period, the largest number of embezzlement cases was recorded in 2006, with 386 cases. Afterwards, this number decreased by approximately 50% and later increased in 2012 to 219 registered instances. Public perceptions related to embezzlement have not yet been researched in Georgia. In the statistics for 2019 and 2020 published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, no separate figures were shown for each type of financial crime, and the total number of registered crimes was 217 in 2019 and 232 in 2020.

In 2017, house arrest from 6 months to 2 years was introduced for embezzlement without aggravating circumstances in addition to a fine and imprisonment.

Georgian legislation^[i] defines embezzlement as misappropriation of someone else’s property or property right if this property or property right was under their rightful possession. Aggravated circumstances for the embezzlement are present when the act is committed by a group, repeatedly, using official position, with large amounts, etc.

In 2014 there were 974 registered cases of fraud, with charges brought against individuals in 639 cases. Registered cases of fraud decreased by 12.22% in 2015, with a total of 855 registered instances. Despite the decrease of registered cases in 2015, charges were put forward in only 477 cases. According to the information published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs 1493 cases of alleged fraud were registered in 2020 out of which 314 (21.03%) were successfully investigated compared to 1846 alleged cases registered in 2019 out of which  421 (22.81%) were successfully investigated.  As it is clear, this type of crime has increased in recent years while the rate of its successful prosecution has decreased significantly.

There are no publicly known efforts undertaken by law enforcement agencies to prevent instances of fraud. In addition, the 2019-2020 National Anti-Corruption Action Plan does not include any activities related to combating fraud.  The New Anti-Corruption Action Plan for 2021-2022 has not been elaborated yet.

According to Article 180 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, fraud is defined as taking possession of property or such rights belonging to another, with a purpose of illegal appropriation. Criminal sanctions for fraud include a fine, community service and/or imprisonment, depending on the gravity of the case.

There are several law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over pursuing instances of fraud, including the Ministry of Interior (Investigative and criminal divisions), Investigation Service of the Ministry of Finance, and Office of the Prosecutor of Georgia.

Nepotism is a significant challenge present in a majority of public institutions in Georgia. In most of the cases, public officials employ their relatives in various public institutions both at the central and local levels. Civil society organisations often report specific cases where family and friends of high-level public officials are employed in public agencies. According to a 2019 survey, 59% of interviewed individuals think that officials in Georgia abuse power and 91% of those think that officials do it to give employment of relatives and friends.

The misuse of administrative resources is one of the major problems reported with regards to Georgian elections over the past years both by local and international observers. When reporting such cases, local observers are highlighting the following category of violations:

• Misuse of enforcement administrative resources;
• Misuse of legislative administrative resources during electoral processes;
• Misuse of institutional administrative resources during electoral processes;
• Misuse of financial administrative resources during electoral processes;
• Pre-election changes to the municipal/state budgets to allow scaling up of social, healthcare and infrastructural projects.

To overcome the mentioned challenges, there is a need for legislative changes and their proper implementation in the practice, which requires strong political will from the ruling party.

Article 48 of Election Code of Georgia prohibits use of administrative resources during the election campaign in support of or against any political party or candidate. It includes support such as use of administrative buildings, means of communication, information services, and other kinds of equipment as well as transportation owned by public institutions. Article 49 of the same Code also includes prohibition of the use of budgetary funds, office, or official position, which covers the following circumstances:

a) getting any career subordinate or otherwise dependent person involved in an activity that may support to presentation and/or election of a candidate;

b) collecting signatures and conducting canvassing during business trips funded by state authorities or municipality bodies;

c) getting engaged in campaigning during working hours and/or in the course of performing official duties.

In addition, from the 6th day before and including Election Day, it is prohibited to implement such projects/programs that have not been previously included in the State Budget. It is also restricted to increase welfare benefits (pensions, hardship allowances, allowances, etc.) envisaged in the adopted state budget.  

According to local NGOs observing elections, the Georgian legislation provides a narrow definition for the misuse of administrative resources during electoral processes, which frequently leaves a number of issues beyond regulation. For instance, according to their assessment, an administrative body may implement several activities that do not explicitly violate the law, however they might still provide goods to particular segments of the society in a way to significantly influence their voting behaviour.

Extortion is one of the less widespread crimes in Georgia. According to the information published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 79 cases of alleged extortion were registered in 2020 out of which 20 (25%) were successfully investigated compared to 113 alleged cases registered in 2019 out of which 51 (45%) were successfully investigated. As the figures show, registered cases of extortion have reduced significantly in 2020 compared to the previous year. However, the proportion of investigated cases also went down.

Article 181 of the criminal code of Georgia determines extortion as a request for the transfer or use of another's property or property rights, accompanied by the use of violence against the victim or his or her close relative, or the destruction or damage of their property, or the threat of dissemination of information that can harm their rights. The crime is punishable with a fine or restriction of liberty from two to four years. The maximum sentence for extortion committed in aggravated circumstances is the restriction of liberty up to nine years.

Clientelism is not a widely used term in Georgia. At the same time, law enforcement agencies don’t pay adequate attention to the problem of clientelism. Despite the number of allegations made by the civil society of vote-buying during almost every election no investigation has been carried out on the matter. No such crime has been registered by the Ministry of Internal Affairs in recent years (recent elections were held in 2018 and in 2020).

According to Article 164​1 of the Criminal code of Georgia offering, promising, transferring or rendering money, securities (including a financial instrument), other property, property rights, services or any other advantage for electoral purposes, directly or indirectly, or accepting it with prior knowledge, or to make a fictitious, hypocritical or other transaction for the purpose of avoidance legal restrictions, if the value of such transaction does not exceed GEL 100 is punishable by a fine, if the value of such a transaction exceeds GEL 100 then it is  punishable by up to three years in prison or a fine.

After the entry into force of the new law on civil service in 2017, important improvements have been made within the civil service system in Georgia. The new law introduced qualitatively new approaches to practices aimed at establishing a unified public service in the country based on career advancement, merit, political neutrality and impartiality. To fight patronage in civil service, detailed rules on transparent recruitment of employees have been introduced by the law. To ensure impartial career, advancement the assessment system of employees has been implemented.