COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Third Progress Report on Georgia's implementation of the action plan on visa liberalisation
Date: 2015-05-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, Georgia, biometrics, border control, corruption, data protection, freedom of movement, fundamental rights, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, migration control, money laundering, right of asylum, terrorism, trafficking in human beings

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 8.5.2015  
SWD(2015) 103 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Third Progress Report on Georgia's implementation of the action plan on visa 
liberalisation 

{COM(2015) 199 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

The  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  (hereafter  CSWD)  accompanies  the  Third 
Progress  Report  on  the  implementation  by  Georgia  of  the  Visa  Liberalisation  Action  Plan 
(hereafter VLAP).1  

The  CSWD,  together  with  the  Report,  provides  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  most  relevant 
developments relating to the implementation of the so-called second phase VLAP benchmarks 
concerning the effective and sustainable implementation of relevant measures. The annex of 
the CSWD includes an update to the assessment of possible migratory and security impacts on 
the European Union (hereafter EU) of the future visa liberalisation for Georgia.  

The factual information and assessment included in the CSWD are based on the information 
gathered  during  the  EU  evaluation  missions  that  took  place  in  Georgia  between  December 
2014  and  March  2015,  which  included  experts  from  EU  Member  States,  services  of  the 
Commission  and  the  European  External  Action  Service  (hereafter  EEAS)  and  the  EU 
Delegation  to  Georgia.  Additional  information  was  obtained  through  the  progress  reports 
submitted by Georgia on 15 October 2014, its updated version received by the Commission 
on  18  January  2015,  and  subsequent  communications  between  December  2014  and  April 
2015.  

The  CSWP  follows  the  VLAP  structure.  Under  the  sections  corresponding  to  individual 
VLAP blocks, the CSWD lists all the benchmarks from the second phase and it describes the 
state of their implementation, in particular focussing on the developments that took place after 
the publication of the Second Progress Report, that is, 29 October 2014.  

2. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VLAP 

2.1. Block 1: Document security, including biometrics 

(cid:190)  Effective  implementation  of  legal  and  institutional  framework  for  document 
security,  including  provision  of  sufficient  financial  and  human  resources,  with 
adequate training programmes; 

The Public Service Development Agency (hereafter PSDA) has responsibility for registration 
of all civil acts such as birth, marriage and death as well as the issuance of identity cards and 
passports. There is over 1000 staff employed on Agency services with over 600 employed in 
territorial  offices.  92%  of  the  cost  of  providing  services  is  funded  out  of  the  fees;  the 
remainder comes from grants and the state budget. Staff is recruited through advertising and 
interview.  References  are  checked  and  background  checks  carried  out  for  those  being 
recruited.  Salaries  for  PSDA  staff  are  higher  than  the  national  average  and  a  system  of 
bonuses  and  pay  increments  is  in  place  as  well  as  payment  for  overtime  and  a  benefits 
package.  Staff  is  provided  with  job  descriptions  and  guidance  on  dealing  with  conflicts  of 
interest,  acceptance  of  gifts,  disclosure  of  confidential  information  etc.  These  factors 
significantly reduce the attraction of staff fraud/corruption. 

The  management  structure  of  the  PSDA  is  sound  with  clearly  defined  roles  and 
responsibilities for each of the senior staff.  This has ensured that all areas relevant to Block 1 

1 COM (2015) 199 final. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
are being properly managed with the appropriate level of staff assigned to individual areas of 
the  operation.    Senior  staff  of  the  PSDA  displays  a  high  degree  of  knowledge  and 
understanding of the operation and practices were consistent between offices, primarily due to 
the  use  of  a  highly  automated  system.  The  PSDA  has  achieved  effective  implementation  of 
the legal and institutional frameworks necessary for document security. It maintains a unified 
database linking personal data through a Personal Identification Number (hereafter PIN) used 
in all relevant transactions which provides a sound basis for the issue of documents.  

A significant effort has been made to improve personal data protection with the appointment 
in  2013  of  a  Data  Protection  Officer  and  mandatory  training  courses  for  all  staff.  An 
Information Management Security System is almost complete and aims to be fully compliant 
with  the  relevant  ISO  standard(s).  PDSA  will  be  seeking  accreditation  for  the  system  from 
ISO in due course. 

(cid:190)  Gradual  roll-out  of  biometric  passports  in  full  compliance  with  highest  ICAO 
standards  and  recommended  practices,  and  complete  phasing-out  of  old  non-
ICAO compliant passports, including at Georgian consulates abroad; 

In relation to the issuance of biometric passports, these are fully compliant with International 
Civil Aviation Organisation’s (hereafter ICAO) specifications set out in Document 9303 and 
have  been  issued  since  2010  (2014  in  relation  to  applications  made  at  Georgian  diplomatic 
missions  abroad).  Fingerprints  are  included  in  the  electronic  chip  in  accordance  with  EU 
document security standards2. These passports contain a number of different types of security 
features as recommended by ICAO and were recently analysed by the MoI of France. 

Various  pieces  of  legislation  have  been  implemented  to  comply  with  the  ICAO  document 
security  requirements.  These  include  the  cessation  of  extending  passports  beyond  their 
original validity period and the requirement for ‘one person- one passport’ which removed the 
ability  to  include  children  on  an  adult’s  passport.  The  previous  ‘capped’  passport3  which  is 
insecure was invalidated for travel from 1 January 2011. A small number4 of such passports 
(which were capable of being extended beyond the original validity date) remain valid up to 
2016.  The  small  number  of  ‘capped’  passports  still  in  circulation  should  not  present  any 
significant problem.  

Arrangements for overseas issuance of biometric passports are now consistent with those in 
Georgia  with  applications  being  sent  electronically  to  Tbilisi  for  a  decision  and  issuance.   
Small  numbers  of  Status  Neutral  Documents  are  issued  for  Georgians  living  in  breakaway 
regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Arrangements for establishing entitlement and their 
secure issuance are satisfactory.  Diplomatic and Service passports are authorised for issue by 
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and have varying lengths of validity as set out in legislation, 
ranging from 4 years to 10 years. There are checks and balances in place to ensure that they 
are issued only to those entitled to such documents. 

(cid:190)  Implementation of the necessary measures to ensure a high level of integrity and 
security of the document application, personalisation and distribution process for 

2 EC 2252/2004 
3  All  passports  issued  by  Georgia  since  1995  are  in  compliance  with  ICAO  standards  with  different  level  of 
security. 
4 18000 will expire in 2015 and the remainder in 2016 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
passports, ensuring that stocks of documents are stored at adequately protected 
places and  avoiding the issuance of multiple passports, identity cards and other 
breeder documents respectively per person;  

Establishing entitlement to a Georgian document is made according to a comprehensive set of 
guidance and legal acts. Arrangements for the establishing of identity and the secure issuance 
of documents (breeder, ID cards, passports both at home and overseas) are very good.  This 
has much to do with the unified database as well as the issuance system for these documents 
which ensure separation of duties (between front and back offices) to prevent one person from 
being  able  to  introduce  a  fraudulent  application  into  the  system  and  produce  a  document. 
There  are  only  three  personalisation  centres  in  Georgia  through  which  all  applications  are 
processed. Random assignment of work also contributes to the robustness of the system and 
reduces  the  opportunity  for  fraud.    It  is  difficult  to  envisage  how  the  system  might  be 
manipulated  by  corrupt  employees  given  the  various  integrated  checks  and  balances.  Data 
security arrangements are very good.  Access to databases is strictly controlled and monitored. 
A system-generated random supervisory check on applications seems to be lacking. 

Some concerns had previously been raised regarding the ability to obtain multiple passports in 
the same or different names.  This has been addressed through legislation5 introduced in June 
2014 to restrict name changes; only one change is allowed for the first name for adult. In all 
cases checks are made to ensure the person is not ‘wanted’ or has previously changed their 
name.  In  relation  to  the  change  of  family  name,  this  can  only  be  done  in  very  restricted 
circumstances. Where a change is made, the citizen’s identity card is invalidated and a new 
card  issued  in  the  new  name  –  the  PIN  remains  the  same.    Second  passports  are  now  only 
granted  where  the  reason  for  the  request meets  the  strict  rules  set  out.    Since  1st September 
2014, second passports are granted with one year validity only. 

Arrangements  for  the  secure  storage  and  handling  of  blank  travel  documents  are  very  good 
and  ensure  that  they  can  be  accounted  for  at  all  times.    Destruction  of  spoiled/damaged 
passports  is  an  overly  bureaucratic  process  as  it  currently  stands  and  results  in  documents 
being stored for lengthy periods of time. 

The front office staff deal with applicants in person but the process appears to be primarily a 
database checking function rather than one that includes an element of fraud awareness. Fraud 
cases are rare, but at present it appears that potential fraud is predominantly dealt with as a 
back office function based on checking database information. Anti-fraud training seems to be 
incomplete in the curricula for front office staff.  

An  internal  audit  function  exists  within  the  PDSA.    However  the  team  is  small,  has  a  large 
mandate  and  has  to  cover  a  large  number  of  offices  across  Georgia.  It  is  important  that  the 
audit function is carried out in relation to security of the application and issuance functions, 
the  secure  handling  of  documents,  security  around  the  protection  of  identity  cards  and 
passport books.  

(cid:190)  Prompt  and  systematic  reporting  to  Interpol/LASP  database  on  lost  and  stolen 

passports; 

5 Amendment to the Law on Civil Acts came into force on 1 June 2014. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Reporting of lost and stolen travel passports to Interpol’s Stolen and Lost Travel Document 
(hereafter SLTD) database is in operation and reports are sent daily from PSDA in response to 
a  citizen  reporting  the  loss  of  a  passport.  On  23  December  2014  PSDA  and  the  National 
Bureau  of  Interpol  (hereafter  NBI)  concluded  a  new  agreement  under  which  PSDA  will 
provide data on all enlisted lost ID cards. This was necessary as Georgian citizens can travel 
visa-free to Turkey with their ID card. Based on the same act, since 23 December 2014 the 
NBI will be notified on a daily basis on the loss of passports and ID cards. 

(cid:190)  Regular  exchange  of  passport  specimens,  visa  forms  and  information  on  false 

documents, and cooperation on document security with the EU; 

Georgia  has  exchanged  specimens  of  its  passports  with  a  number  of  countries.  There  are 
arrangements  in  place  to  ensure  that  new  passport  specimens  are  circulated  as  widely  as 
possible.  At present this is done primarily through the diplomatic missions overseas. In the 
past, some documents (for example, the Status Neutral Document) have been submitted to the 
EU Travel Document Expert Group to examine.  Examples of Georgian passports issued since 
1994  are  displayed  on  PRADO6.  A  new  visa  format  was  introduced  from  September  2014 
containing a photograph of the visa holder and a machine readable zone. In 2015 PSDA will 
start  preparations  for  the  issuance  of  new  generation  biometric  passport,  travel  documents, 
including Status Neutral travel document.  The Status Neutral travel document (currently non-
biometric) may be redesigned to include an electronic chip, but it will not be a valid document 
for visa-free travel.   

PSDA has not yet joined the ICAO Public Key Directory (hereafter PKD) nor circulated its 
Electronic Machine Readable Passport (hereafter eMRP) certificates or Certificate Revocation 
Lists (hereafter CRLs) to the relevant bodies and partners. 

2.2. Block 2: Integrated Border Management, Migration Management, and Asylum 

2.2.1.  Integrated border management 

(cid:190)  Effective  implementation  and  updating  of  the  national  Integrated  Border 
Management  (IBM)  Strategy  and  Action  Plan,  including  legislation  on  border 
control through adequate border checks and border surveillance procedures and 
operational effectiveness, situational picture at national and local level, including 
use  of  risk  analysis,  intelligence  and  data-flow  management,  as  well  as  direct 
access and consultation of relevant national and international databases;  

Institutional and legal framework of Border Management in Georgia – current situation 

Progress in demarcation of state borders is still pending with Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. 
71 % of the borders with Armenia, 66 % with Azerbaijan and 36 % with Russia have been 
agreed at the level of the Delimitation Commissions and Expert Groups.  

Georgia  has  been  in  the  process  since  ten  years  of  implementing  the  institutional  reform 
which  started  in  2004.  The  previous  military  agency,  the  State  Border  Defence  Department 
was  transformed  into  a  law-enforcement  agency  in  the  Ministry  of  Interior  (hereafter  MoI). 

6 EU Public Register of Authentic Travel and Identity Documents Online: http://prado.consilium.europa.eu/. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  reform  has  required  strict  efforts,  including  new  legislation  and  creation  of  a  new 
organisation  (Border  Police)  and  later  in  2009  reorganising  border  checks  at  all  border 
crossing points under the Patrol Police. This work is completed in practise and the focus has 
been and remains on strengthening the capabilities of the involved agencies.  

Georgia  has  developed  its  border  management  and  promoted  the  reform  by  adopting  an 
Integrated  Border  Management  Strategy  (IBMS)  and  Action  Plan  (AP).  The  strategy 
identifies the key factors for effective border management. It provides policies, principles and 
objectives  for  a  coherent  and  effective  implementation  based  on  the  joint  efforts  of  the 
responsible  agencies.  A  program  on  Border  Police  Modernisation,  Standardisation  and 
Unification has been started in August 2014. An intra-agency working group in the MoI has 
been formed to elaborate this program for a period of 5 years according to the plan in order to 
establish common unified and standardised procedures. 

An  extensive  reformation  and  modernisation  of  the  customs  system  started  in  2007  by 
establishing the Revenue Service that combined Customs and Tax Services. 

Control of Georgia's breakaway territories 

The state border in the areas of Georgia's breakaway territories is not controlled by Georgian 
authorities.  Soon  after  the  2008  war,  Russia  (FSB)  started  the  surveillance  of  the 
administrative boundary line (ABL) and control of the traffic across the line. Georgian Police 
is controlling the ABL by mobile patrols and the ABL crossings at check points. The aim of 
the control is to inform persons seeking to enter the breakaway areas that they are not under 
the control of Georgian authorities. Third country nationals who are entering the breakaway 
territories  are  registered  at  the  check  point  to  verify,  if  needed,  that  they  have  left  the  area 
under control of Georgian authorities. When entering from breakaway territories, all cars and 
persons  (and  goods)  are  checked  in  order  to  verify  their  right  to  stay  in  Georgia.  Travel 
documents are not stamped when entering or exiting the breakaway territories. 

Data-flow management and access to databases  

In  order  to  address  new  regulations  introduced  by  the  Law  on  Legal  Status  of  Aliens  and 
Stateless  Persons,  the  Border  Migration  Administering  and  Reporting  System  (hereafter 
BMARS) was launched as of 1 September 2014. The system provides the information needed 
for border crossings and border checks. 

(cid:190)  Continued improvement of inter-agency cooperation (including exchange of data 
between all the agencies involved in border management, in particular the Patrol 
Police  Department,  the  Border  Police  and  the  Border  Police  Coast  Guard,  and 
other law enforcement agencies, including customs);  

That basis for inter-agency cooperation exists and authorities involved in border management 
are  willing  further  developing  their  cooperation  mechanisms.  There  is  a  high  level  of 
implementation  and  especially  in  cooperation  between  the  Patrol  Police  and  the  Revenue 
Service.  At  border  crossing  points  the  cooperation  has  received  forms  which  could  be 
considered as best practises according to the EU standards.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(cid:190)  Provision of adequate infrastructure, technical equipment, IT systems, financial 
and human resources in accordance with the IBM Strategy and Action Plan, and 
effective implementation of training programmes and anticorruption measures; 

Improving land border infrastructure and surveillance tools is one of the priorities for the next 
years.  Infrastructure  supports  the  effective  implementation  of  border  management.  Georgia 
has  operational  border  crossing  points,  modernised  and  adapted  to  control  different  flows. 
There is a standard design model applied to all Georgian BCPs which provides for safe and 
well organised movement of passengers and cargo.  

Salaries have been raised significantly after the start of the reform. In 2005 a border guard´s 
monthly  salary  in  the  Border  Police  was  150  GEL;  in  2014  it  was  already  1000  GEL. 
Respectively, for Patrol Police officer working at a BCP, the monthly salary level was 1000 
GEL in 2012 and is currently 1165 GEL. The budget of the Border Police has likewise grown 
during the recent years, In 2012 the budget was 61,3 million GEL and in 2014 78,6 million 
GEL. 

MoI Academy provides training  and on-job  retraining courses for the personnel of different 
departments of the MoI of Georgia.   

(cid:190)  Continued improvement in international cooperation, including cooperation with 
neighbouring  countries  and  effective  implementation  of  working  arrangement 
with FRONTEX; 

International  cooperation  in  the  area  of  border  management  was  noted  to  be  extensive  in 
border  management  already  during  the  previous  missions.  Bilateral  cooperation  agreements 
have been adopted with all neighbouring countries. In general, the wide range of international 
partners' support, operational cooperation, information exchange and sharing of best practises.  

2.2.2.  Migration management 

(cid:190)  Continued  effective  implementation  of  the  EU-Georgia  readmission  agreement, 
as well as relevant Georgia's readmission agreements with third countries,  and 
of  measures  providing  for  the  sustainable  reintegration  of  Georgian  citizens 
(returning voluntarily or not); 

Georgia has signed the readmission agreement with the EU, as well as Switzerland, Norway, 
Moldova, Ukraine and Denmark. Implementing Protocols are signed with Bulgaria, Estonia, 
Hungary, Austria, Benelux and Lithuania. Another 11 protocols are under negotiations and a 
protocol  with  Denmark  is  ready  for  signature.  The  implementation  of  the  EU-Georgia 
readmission agreement has been evaluated as very good. Intra-agency cooperation in that area 
seems  to  function  very  well  in  Georgia.  Georgia  has  introduced  the  Readmission  Case 
Management  Electronic  System,  coordinated  by  Ministry  for  Foreign  Affairs.  The 
establishment of the System was financed by EU and implemented by IOM and ICMPD. The 
System  provides  an  on-line  process  allowing  a  speedy  communication  between  the 
stakeholders and also provides a statistical overview on the readmission activities.  

Since  March  2011  until  31  December  2014;  3739  decisions  to  accept  the  person  have  been 
adopted and 292 cases have been refused. Most cases were asked and approved to Germany, 
Greece,  France,  Austria  and  Belgium.  There  have  been  only  5  readmission  cases  of  third 
7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
country  nationals  to  Georgia  so  far.  Georgian  answers  to  readmission  applications  are  very 
clear and timely, which means that internal coordination is effective. 

Negotiations  on  readmission  agreements  with  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Serbia,  Montenegro 
and Belarus are ongoing. Georgia has proposed to start negotiations to Armenia, Azerbaijan, 
Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Israel as well. The main challenge for the future 
will  be  to  launch  negotiations  with  other  important  third  countries,  especially  with  Algeria, 
China, Egypt, Iran, Nepal, Nigeria and Turkey.   

According to the statistical data, overall there were 5409 returns to Georgia in 2013 and 4188 
returns in 2014. There were no estimations on the numbers of voluntary returns to the country. 

Four  Mobility  Centres  in  Georgia  were  established  within  the  project  “Reinforcing  the 
capacities  of  the  Government  of  Georgia  in  border  and  migration  management”.  They  were 
established  in  March  2013  (Tbilisi)  and  in  the  period  from  April  to  June  2014  (further  3 
centres).  There  are  4  employees  in  Tbilisi  Mobility  Centre  and  2  employees  in  each  of  3 
centres.  The  Centres  provide  reintegration  support  measures  such  as  activities  in  return 
assistance,  reception  assistance  and  transport,  initial  counselling,  providing  temporary 
accommodation,  medical  assistance,  support  in  employment  and  vocational  training  and 
providing  support  in  business  creation.  Activities  of  the  Mobility  Centre  concerning  the 
information  and  counselling  to  potential  migrants  are  oriented  to  raise  awareness  of  safe 
migration, prevention of irregular migration and trafficking and to collect information about 
push  and  pull  factors.  The  Mobility  Centres  have  been  addressed  by  930  persons,  returning 
from 32 countries. The majority of persons (82%) have returned voluntary to Georgia, 16% 
were  returned  and  2%  of  the  beneficiaries  were  readmitted  to  Georgia  (data  for  the  whole 
period since the establishments of the centres). The State budget already allocated partial funding 
in 2015 for reintegration activities within Mobility centres (GEL 400,000).  

(cid:190)  Effective  implementation  of  legal  framework  for  migration  management, 
including  provision  of  administrative  structures  with  adequate  human  and 
financial  resources  with  clear  competences  for  all  aspects  of  migration 
management, as well as effective cooperation between relevant agencies; 

The Law on the Legal Status of Aliens has been amended in November 2014 and in February 
2015  prescribing  the  transitional  period  until  1  July  2015  for  foreigners  to  gather  all 
documents  which  are  necessary  for  the  procedure  of  issuing  a  residence  permit  in  Georgia. 
The  implementation  of  the  Law  on  the  Legal  Status  of  Aliens  and  Stateless  Persons  in  the 
fields  of  legal  migration  and  visa  policy  is  in  place  since  September  2014  and  this  was 
confirmed also by statistical data. Every ministry is responsible for its jurisdictions and looks 
after  the  organisation,  logistics,  staff  and  financial  support,  as  well  as  training  of  staff.  The 
regulatory framework provides adequate division of competences between the ministries and 
agencies.  

The  implementation  of  the  new  Law  on  the  Legal  Status  of  Aliens  and  Stateless  Persons  is 
monitored  by  the  established  working  group  within  the  State  Commission  on  Migration 
Issues.  The  working  group  takes  into  account  the  opinion  of  non-governmental  and 
international organisations and universities on the issues of implementation of the law. 

The  Migration  Strategy  of  Georgia  for  2013-2015  was  adopted  in  March  2013  and 
complemented  by  an  Action  Plan  from  June 2013.  The  strategy's  main  areas  are  prevention 
8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and control of irregular migration, promotion of legal migration and reintegration of citizens 
in Georgia and the development of the asylum system in Georgia. The Action Plan reflects the 
areas  with  concrete  activities,  deadlines,  responsible  authorities  and  partners.  Out  of 
approximately 100 activities, 42 were completed, while the remaining 58 are expected to be 
finalised by the end of 2015. Additional financial resources might be necessary to finalise the 
implementation of the activities. 

The  preparation  of  the  new  Migration  Strategy  2016-2020  has  been  entrusted  to  the  State 
Commission  on  Migration  Issues.  The  State  Commission  on  Migration  Issues  acts  as  an 
advisory  body  to  the  Government,  without  executive  functions,  but  has  coordinative  and 
policy making role in the system. The Commission will prepare the new strategy and action 
plan, the updated Migration profile, a migration text-book for academia, the plan for VLAP 
information campaigns, the concept of a migration analytical system and will coordinate the 
activities within the VLAP. 

(cid:190)  Establishment  and  regular  updating  of  Georgia's  Migration  Profile,    and 

effective analysis of data on migration stocks and flows; 

The Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation 
and Refugees was previously responsible for preparation of the Migration Profile of Georgia. 
So far, Georgia has prepared the Profile for the years 2005 to 2010 and the Migration Profile 
for 2011 and 2012 was prepared and adopted in September 2013. The profile was amended in 
the beginning of 2014. The Migration profile for 2014-2015 will be published by the end of 
February 2016. 

An  electronic  database  for  irregular  migrants  (BMARS  –  Border,  Migration  Administering 
and Reporting System) was established and started operating on 1 March 2015. The software 
counts  the  numbers  of  the  days  after  entering  the  country  until  the  departure  for  foreign 
citizens. The database includes the duration of residence and procedures that were launched 
by that person, including the notice on over-stayers and legal status of individual foreigners. It 
gives the data for the individual who is in the procedure and shows if the person has stayed in 
the country longer than he or she is allowed to stay. 

The  coordination  of  the  activities  regarding  the  establishment  of  a  Unified  Migration 
Analytical  System  has  been  taken  over  in  February  2014  by  the  State  Commission  for 
Migration  Issues,  where  a  special  working  group  has  been  established.  The  concept  of  the 
Unified  Migration  Analytical  System  has  been  prepared  and  it  is  expected  that  the  System 
will be tested in 2016.  

(cid:190)  Consistent  implementation  of  an  effective  methodology  on  inland  detection  of 
irregular migrants, risk analysis (including the reporting of relevant agencies and 
analysis  on  all  administrative  levels),  and  investigation  of  cases  of  organised 
facilitated  irregular  migration,  including  effective  cooperation  between  relevant 
agencies;  

Inland  detection  of  irregular  migrants  in  Georgia  is  performed  by  the  Patrol  Police,  Central 
and Regional Police. The detection of irregular migrants is executed as a routine work or on 
the special request of the Migration Department. The Ministry of the Interior has developed a 
modern and effective concept of the Risk Analyses.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Within the MoI, a well-staffed Migration Department has been established in order to ensure 
the coordination of the activities in the field of combating irregular migration and conduct the 
deportation  procedures  and  ensure  the  accommodation  of  the  foreigners  in  the  deportation 
procedures. The Migration Department has 74 posts, 72 of which are occupied. The Migration 
Department consists of an irregular migration division (22 posts), a division for legal affairs 
(11) and the Temporary accommodation centre (37). The capacity seems to be sufficient for 
the  beginning  of  the  implementation,  but  attention  must  be  given  to  the  implementation, 
especially to the vulnerable categories and the overall capacity of reception system. 

The  Criminal  police  is  responsible  for  the  fight  against  irregular  migration;  the  tasks  are 
identification of irregular migrants, investigation of criminal offences on irregular migration, 
organise  preventive  actions,  as  well  to  reveal  the  cases  of  human  trafficking.  The  Criminal 
police  managed  to  launch  219  investigations  for  illegal  crossing  of  the  state  border,  6 
investigations on illegal transfer of migrant to the state border of Georgia, 4200 investigations 
on the use of forged documents were detected in 2014. 

The authorities are aware of the division of the responsibilities of various agencies in the field 
of  migration  and  consequently  for  the  role  of  exchange  of  information  and  necessary  co-
operation.  Intra-agency  cooperation  is  covered  by  the  Ministerial  Order  that  established  in 
September  2014  the  Co-ordination  Group  on  combating  irregular  migration;  the  Migration 
Department is a key coordinating body within the Ministry of the Interior.  

(cid:190)  Provision  of  adequate 

infrastructure 

(including  detention  centres)  and 
strengthening of responsible bodies to ensure, according to EU and international 
standards  and  in  full  respect  of  migrants'  human  rights,  effective  expulsion  of 
illegally  staying  and/or  transiting  third  country  nationals  from  the  territory  of 
Georgia; 

For the accommodation of the irregular migrants who are in the expulsion procedure, Georgia 
has  established  the  Temporary  Accommodation  Centre.  The  capacity  of  the  Centre  is  92 
persons;  up  to  50  places  for  single  men,  30  for  woman  and  12  places  for  families. 
Unaccompanied  minors  will  be  accommodated  with  the  families.  It  has  been  established 
according  to  best  practices  and  it  is  used  for  the  accommodation  and  detention  of  irregular 
migrants  since  1  March  2015.  The  structure  of  the  Centre  enables  the  proper  reception  and 
accommodation of all categories of persons; including vulnerable groups. 

District and Regional Police stations in the territory of Georgia have special premises for the 
temporary  detention  of  foreigners;  called  Temporary  Detention  Isolators.  There  are  38 
Isolators,  where  a  foreigner  may  be  detained  for  maximum  of  48  hours  (Order  631  on 
detention  and  placement  of  aliens  in  the  Temporary  Accommodation  Centre).  A  foreigner 
may  be  detained  in  the  isolators  in  the  first  phase  of  the  procedure.  The  Public  defender 
(Ombudsman)  of  Georgia  will  regularly  monitor  the  Centre  and  the  Temporary  Detention 
Isolators. 

2.2.3.  Asylum policy 

(cid:190)  Effective  implementation  of  asylum  legislation,  including  provision  of  adequate 
infrastructure  and  strengthening  of  the  responsible  bodies  (staff,  funding, 
training programmes), in particular in the area of asylum procedures, reception 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of asylum seekers, refugees and other persons in need of international protection, 
protection of their rights and dignity;  

The  law  on  Refugees  and  Humanitarian  Status  of  2011  provides  the  necessary  institutional 
framework,  legal  procedures  and  principles  and  is  largely  in  line  with  international  and 
European  standards.  A  new  law  is  currently  being  drafted.  It  will  include  provisions  and 
clarifications  on  accelerated  procedures,  "refugee  sur  place"  concept,  special  procedure  for 
vulnerable  categories,  the  difference  between  “exclusion”  and  “denial  of  status”  and  it  will 
introduce the concept of safe country. 

Based on the 2011 Law on Refugees and Humanitarian Status a foreigner illegally residing in 
Georgia may express the intention to apply for asylum to every state agency in Georgia. The 
contacted  agency  has  to  refer  the  applicant  to  the  Ministry  of  Internally  Displaced  Persons 
from  the  Occupied  Territories,  Accommodation  and  Refugees  (MRA),  responsible  for 
conducting  the  asylum  procedure  and  providing  accommodation  to  asylum  seekers.  If  a 
person  is  legally  staying  in  Georgia,  he/she  has  to  apply  for  asylum  at  the  Ministry.  An 
irregular  migrant  has  to  apply for  asylum  within  24  hours  after  entering  the  country.  If  this 
deadline  is  not  met,  the  application  shall  be  refused  and  the  person  is  not  registered  as  an 
asylum seeker. The only exception could be the existence of special circumstances.  

In case the applicant is registered as an asylum seeker, the application will be assessed on its 
individual merits. A personal  interview is done by a caseworker of the MRA and the MRA 
also systematically sends the personal data to the MoI for a security check. The MRA must 
examine the application within 6 month after the registration, a period which may be extended 
for  another  3  months.  The  final  decision  of  granting  the  status  is  made  by  the  head  of 
department  on  the  basis  of  a  draft  decision  by  the  caseworker  and  on  the  grounds  of  the 
documentation  provided  in  the  case.  An  appeal  against  a  negative  decision  may  be  lodged 
within  10  days.  All  judges  (especially  the  first  instance  judges)  dealing  with  refugee  issues 
should receive training in refugee law. 

A cause for concern is the high number of rejections that are based on undisclosed security 
concerns by the MoI. In a total of 703 cases submitted to MoI, 15 cases received a negative 
security  advice  “with  grounded  arguments”  and  178  received  a  negative  security  advice 
“without grounded arguments”. Without knowing the profiles of the applications, it is difficult 
to imagine that in 27,5% of the cases, individual security threats were identified. Indeed, the 
Law  on  Refugee  and  Humanitarian  Status  allows  for  exclusion  of  applicants  on  broader 
grounds than the 1951 Convention Grounds. For example, art. 3 e) provides the possibility to 
exclude,  based  on  a  reasonable  assumption,  that  the  applicant  would  be  a  threat  to  state 
security, territorial integrity as well as to the public order of Georgia. It is advisable to limit 
the exclusion grounds to those foreseen in the 1951 Convention. If an applicant would meet 
exclusion criteria as per Article 1F of the 1951 Geneva Convention, this applicant should not 
be  rejected  based  on  (disclosed)  security  information,  but  should  be  rejected  based  on  a 
decision by the MRA with a detailed reasoning on the exclusion grounds, which then could be 
challenged in the appeal phase.  

Based on previous recommendations, a Country of Origin Unit was created in 2014. The Unit 
has 3 employees, the head of the unit and 2 senior specialists. These persons received EASO 
and  UNHCR  training  on  COI  and  participated  in  different  seminars  and  expert  missions. 
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the COI unit were drafted in June 2014, and were 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
presented  to  UNHCR  and  other  experts  for  recommendations.    ICMPD  also  supported  the 
drafting of the SOP. 

There  are  clear  indications  that  the  Refugee  Status  Determination  procedure  (RSD)  is  of 
sufficient  quality  and  efforts  are  made  to  improve  the  quality  further.    There  is  a  clear 
structure for RSD7. This structure is based on international and European (EASO) standards 
and is being followed in practice. Rejection decisions contain a detailed reasoning on aspects 
of law and facts. The decision also contains detailed information on remedies, including the 
deadline of 10 days to submit the appeal. Confidentiality is guaranteed and the standard of the 
interview facilities is good: these are well equipped to guarantee a qualitative interview.   

The  number  of  staff  (9  excluding  the  Head  of  Asylum  Issues  Division  and  Head  of  the 
Department) is sufficient if one takes into consideration the influx of the last months of 2014 
(61 cases in November; 88 cases in December). However, there is still a backlog of around 
635  cases  (or  1174  persons).  It’s  important  to  reduce  this  backlog  in  an  expedient  manner. 
This  could  for  example  also  include  the  possibility  for  expedited  processing  for  clearly 
founded cases (e.g. Syrians). 

Given  the  fact  that  most  of  the  applicants  in  Georgia  originate  from  countries  with  armed 
conflicts, the recognition rate is quite low. In 2014, there were 1070 applications from Iraq, 79 
from Syria and 419 from Ukraine, on a total number of 1792 applications that year. However, 
of the 361 decisions taken in 2014, only 29 cases received refugee status (8%) and only 104 
cases humanitarian protection (29%). For Syria, no refugee statuses were granted in 2014 and 
36  cases  received  humanitarian  protection  (71%).  For  Iraq,  humanitarian  protection  was 
granted  in  27%  (61)  of  the  cases  treated  and  refugee  status  in  12%  of  the  cases  (28).  61% 
(138) of the decisions taken in Iraqi cases were rejections. Given the situation in Syria it is at 
least  remarkable  that  none  of  the  applicants  would  qualify  for  refugee  status.  Statistics  also 
show  that  the  international  protection  rate  (Refugee  Status  and  Humanitarian  Status 
combined) for countries such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Iran was 0%.  

(cid:190)  Integration  of  refugees  and  beneficiaries  of  international  protection,  ensuring 
their  capacity  to  self-sustain,  to  access  public  services  and  social  rights  and  to 
integrate  in  Georgia,  including    access  to  travel  documents  foreseen  by  the 
legislation; 

As  of  January  2015,  asylum  seekers  have  access  to  the  basic  package  of  the  universal 
healthcare  system, giving them  access  to Outpatient care, surgical care, urgent medical care 
and  critical  medicine,  child  delivery,  radiotherapy  and  chemotherapy.  This  is  linked  to  the 
introduction of the temporary ID card. Refugees and humanitarian status holders already had 
access to this system since 21 February 2013. In 2014, at least 180 persons with a permanent 
residence permit have used the services of the State Specific Healthcare Program. 

According  to  the  “Law  on  General  Education”  of  Georgia,  asylum  applicants,  refugees  and 
humanitarian  status  holders  have  the  same  right  to  education  as  Georgian  citizens.    An 
agreement  was  reached  with  the  local  authorities  of  Tbilisi  that  asylum  seekers  will  have 

7 Summary of the claim; Credibility Assessment; Assessment of criteria according to 1951 Geneva convention 
and  1967  Protocol;  Well-founded  fear;  Persecution;  Grounds  for  persecution;  Internal  flight  alternative  (if 
relevant); Exclusion (if relevant) and Humanitarian status assessment. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
access to preschool educational institutions. In February 2015, 242 children were enrolled in 
schools spread over Georgia.   

Within a joint MRA-UNHCR project, allowances are given to certain categories of vulnerable 
applicants  (i.a.  large  families,  single  parents,  children-at-risk,  elderly,  persons  with  medical 
needs).  Asylum  applicants  have  the  right  to  work  immediately  after  reception  of  the 
temporary ID card. Refugees and beneficiaries of international protection have access to the 
mainstream  employment  program  that  foresees  inter  alia  in  consultation  and  information 
services, vocational trainings 

An  asylum  applicant  is  provided  with  the  temporary  identification  card  by  Public  Service 
Development Agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). A temporary identity card is granted to 
asylum-seekers  (and  to  applicants  for  the  status  of  statelessness)  as  of  15  November  2014. 
This  card  is  issued  within  10  working  days,  has  a  validity  of  1  year  and  is  issued  free  of 
charge. In 2014 (15 November - 31 December) 357 temporary identity cards were granted, in 
2015 (1 January - 26 February) 296.   

Refugees  and  beneficiaries  of  humanitarian  status  are  provided  with  freedom  of  movement, 
within the territory of Georgia, but also outside the country.  Travel documents for refugees 
exist and are granted in practice by the Civil Service Agency of the MoJ of Georgia. In 2013, 
35 travel documents were granted to refugees, in 2014, 27. Legal provisions for the granting 
of travel documents to humanitarian status holders who do not have personal ID documents 
exist, but in practice such documents are not granted.    

Naturalisation is the most durable solution for refugees and stateless persons. The legislative 
framework  to  grant  citizenship  is  in  place:  in  2009  26  refugees  were  granted  Georgian 
citizenship,  in  2010  176,  in  2011  163,  in  2012  114  and  in  2014  27.    Although  the  exact 
number is unclear, the great majority of these naturalisations were refugees originating from 
Chechnya.  The  numbers  show  that  there  were  no  naturalisations  in  2013.  In  that  year  all 
applications  were  rejected  and  allegedly  this  was  linked  to  internal  security  considerations.  
The  new  law  on  Georgian  citizenship  introduced  Georgian  language  knowledge  and 
knowledge  of  history  as  mandatory  requirements  for  naturalisation.  The  introduction  of 
Georgian  language  knowledge  and  knowledge  of  Georgian  history  as  conditions  for  being 
granted naturalisation are as such not problematic, but it’s important that these requirements 
are  reasonable  and  do  not  lead  to  exclusion  of  the  most  vulnerable  refugees  or  of  refugees 
with a different cultural background. 

2.3. Block 3: Public Order and Security  

2.3.1.  Preventing and fighting organised crime, terrorism and corruption 

(cid:190)  Implementation  of  the  legislation,  national  strategy  and  action  plan  on 
preventing and fighting organised crime including effective coordination between 
the relevant authorities, as well as conducting effective investigation, prosecution 
and confiscation of proceeds of crime; 

As of 2003 a successful wave of police reforms were carried out and led to a deep structural 
reorganisation of the MoI. The main aim of the structural reorganisation was to depoliticise 
the police force, ensure accountability for any wrongdoing and transparency of police work. 
The tabula rasa reform of Police, replaced a police system known for corruption, bureaucracy 
13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and  wastefulness  with  a  more  efficient,  well  equipped  and  professional  one,  in  a  very  short 
period  of  time.  The  adoption  of  strict  legal  standards  against  grafting,  the  raising  of  police 
salaries (higher than national average for the lowest ranks) along with mass dismissals, helped 
to  eliminate  much  of  the  financial  incentive  to  accept  bribes.  According  to  research  data, 
citizen surveys and statistics the police forces of Georgia are deemed as trustful and carry out 
their duties in a transparent and effective way. 

The Interagency Coordinating Council for Combating Organised Crime was established on 13 
June 2013. The Council is composed of representatives of all relevant ministries and agencies 
and invites representatives of International organisations and NGO's to attend the meetings as 
well. The Council has the overall interagency coordination function and has established four 
thematic working groups dealing with different important crime areas. The main tools of the 
Council for combating organised crime (OC) are the National Strategy and Action Plan which 
were adopted on 2013 and are currently in the process of elaboration and to be adopted by the 
Government in the course of 2015. 

The  Council  runs  periodic  reviews  of  the  current  legislative  framework  and  proposes 
amendments when and if necessary. The basis of all the anti-OC actors is updated regularly, 
also  taking  into  account  human  rights  factors  and  the  evolution  of  society  and  global 
challenges. A detailed Action Plan with timeframe and follow-up functions is in place and the 
Council receives reports a regular basis on the progress. 

National information flow is arranged by electronic e-flow software which is available to all 
police  officers.  Analysis  and  strategic  development  division  at  the  HQ  is  in  charge  of 
analysing  the  information  stored  in  e-flow  and  provides  analysis  on  current  crime  situation 
covering  the  whole  country.  The  software  utilises  also  a  mapping  system.  When  a  pre-trial 
investigation  is  launched,  the  police  and  prosecution  use  the  electronic  case  management 
software to share and store all materials made and provided during the pre-investigation. All 
documents and written evidence are handled electronically on line. Based on this database, the 
prosecutor's office is capable to map the crime situation in the regions as well. Since 2013, 42 
domestic joint investigation teams have been established. 

Prosecutors  are  responsible  for  leading  the  pre-trial  investigations  and  the  cooperation  with 
the police is working well. The prosecutors are involved in the pre-trial investigation as soon 
as  the  criminal  report  is  registered  in  a  common  database,  e-enforcement.ge8  giving  the 
prosecutor the possibility to lead the investigations also in practice.  

The  interagency  cooperation  between  all  Law  Enforcement  agencies  has  been  arranged 
according  to  different  interagency  MoUs,  Joint  Orders  or  relevant  instructions.  One  of  the 
comprehensive  inter-agency  cooperation  mechanisms  is  the  MoU  on  Law-Enforcement 
Cooperation,  signatories  to  which  are:  MoI,  MoJ,  Prosecutor’s  office,  Ministry  of  Finance, 
Financial  Monitoring  Service  (FIU).  Good  examples  of  the  inter  agency  cooperation  are 
combined working groups and task forces9. 

8 Electronic Centralised Service for Investigation of Criminal Cases. 
9  Drug  Trafficking  Prevention  Group  acting  at  Tbilisi  airport  and  consisting  officers  of  MoI  and  Ministry  of 
Finance;  Container  Control  Group  at  Poti  Harbour  consisting  of  2  Patrol  Police  Officers,  2  Criminal  Police 
officers  and  2  custom  officers.  MoU  has  been  signed  by  the  MoI,  The  Revenue  Service  and  United  Nations 
Office  on  Drugs  and  Crime;  and  Mobile  groups  and  Task  Force  on  Trafficking  of  Human  beings  located  in 
Adjara  Region  and  composed  of  prosecutors  and  detective  investigators  of  Human  Trafficking  and  Irregular 
14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Georgia  has  sufficient  legislation  and  a  program  on  witness  protection  and  at  the  moment 
there are several persons under the program's protection. 

The  fight  against  OC,  mainly  against  the  "Thieves  in  Law"  organisation  has  been  effective 
and fruitful since the adoption of the Law on “Organised Crime and Racketeering” in 2005. 
According  to  the  Criminal  Code  of  Georgia  definitions  being  a  "Thief  in  Law"  and  being 
member  of  Thieves  in  Law  community  ("criminal  circle")  are  recognised  as  types  of 
organised  crime.  Article  223/1  of  the  Criminal  Code  –  punishes  membership  of  "criminal 
circle"  and  sanctions  prison  sentence  of  5-10  years,  with  or  without  fine,  as  well  as 
confiscation of illegal property. Since 2006, 293 persons have been convicted for membership 
of "Thieves in Law" organisation and an additional 45 for being "Thieves in Law" – overall 
338  persons.  Several  real  estate  and  cars  as  well  as  other  property  has  been  seized  and 
confiscated. Many of the seized houses are currently serving as governmental estates, mainly 
as  police  stations.  The  total  value  of  seized  assets  years  2006-2014  is  GEL  54  million. 
Moreover the prevention of OC in the Penitentiary Institutions by monitoring the activities of 
personnel and convicted has made it possible to prevent the recruitments of new members by 
crime  authorities.  All  the  concluded  activities  with  the  purpose  of  raising  awareness  on  the 
issues  related  to  "Thieves  in  Law"  and  other  issues  related  to  organised  crime  have  led  to 
excellent results. 

The  MoI  Central  Criminal  Police  Department  developed  profiles  on  all  known  "Thieves  in 
Law"10.  Currently  348  "Thieves  in  Law"  are  registered  in  the  police  database.  Confiscated 
assets, data on investigations and prosecutions, criminal personal details and modus operandi 
are collected and available according to law requirements. Currently there are 6 members of 
"Thieves in Law" serving their terms in prison in Georgia while the others known are abroad 
mainly  in  the  Russian  Federation,  Ukraine  and  the  EU.  Half  of  them  still  have  Georgian 
citizenship. Georgia is putting special efforts on cooperating with EU Member States to help 
tackle the activities of these EU resident "Thieves in Law". Several EU Member States have 
already  been  affected  with  the  phenomena  and,  as  an  example,  some  400  Georgians  were 
arrested in Sweden and around 70 in Denmark year in 2014, because of committing different 
types  of  property  crimes  (shop  lifting,  burglaries  etc.).  Many  of  those  arrested  have  applied 
for asylum when arriving in the country. 

The actions on crime prevention and especially the results achieved should be evaluated and 
made  use  of  when  drafting  and  amending  the  new  strategy  on  organised  crime,  also  taking 
into consideration the possible emergence of new organised crime groups. 

(cid:190)  Implementation  of  legislation,  national  strategy  and  action  plan  on  addressing 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  including  effective  coordination  between  state 
agencies,  effective  protection  of  victims  of  trafficking,  in  particular  children,  as 

Migration Division. MoU signed by MoI, Main Prosecutor’s Office and International Organisation for Migration 
(IOM).  

10  Thieves  in  law  community  is  any  type of union  of persons  acting  in  accordance with a  self-established  and 
recognised special rules aiming to intimidate, threaten, coerce people, act in conspiracy, arrangement of criminal 
argues, drawing juveniles in criminal activities, committing criminal act or tempting others to commit crime with 
the general purpose to illegally receive income for the members of such union or for someone else. Member of 
the world of thieves in law is any person who recognises the world of thieves in law and regularly acts in favor 
of implementation of aims of the world of thieves in law. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
well as effective measures to prosecute human traffickers and users of services of 
trafficking  victims;  provision  of  adequate  infrastructures  and  funds  ensuring 
decent  reception  and  protection  of  the  rights  and  dignity  of  trafficking  victims, 
and supporting their social and professional reintegration; 

The  Criminal  Code  is  complemented  by  the  Law  of  Georgia  on  Combating  Human 
Trafficking, implemented in 2006. This law determines the organisational and legal grounds 
for preventing and combating human trafficking, the competencies and obligations of the state 
agencies, public officials and legal entities and rules of coordination of their activities in the 
measures applied against human trafficking as well as the legal status and rights of the victims 
of  human  trafficking  and  the  guarantees  of  their  social  and  legal  protection.  The  law  was 
updated  in  May  2014  to  extend  the  definition  further  and  to  reflect  the  2012  Council  of 
Europe's  Group  of  Experts  on  Action  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (GRETA) 
recommendations related to protection and assistance for child victims.  

The  National  Action  Plan  (NAP)  for  2015-2016  was  elaborated  by  the  Inter-Agency 
Coordination Council on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (THB Council). The THB 
Council  is  the  central  coordinating  mechanism  for  the  fight  against  trafficking  of  human 
beings  (THB)  with  key  objectives  of  elaboration  and  implementation  of  the  NAP, 
development  of  specific  proposals  regarding  issues  of  THB,  coordination  between 
governmental agencies working on THB issues and cooperation with NGOs and international 
organisations  among  others.  This  structure  comprises  a  permanent  high-level  representation 
and  represents  a  significant  commitment  by  the  Georgian  government  to  a  multi-agency 
approach. Additionally the THB Council has an integral role in the identification and granting 
of  victim  status  to  identified  victims  of  trafficking.  This  ongoing  task  is  undertaken  by  the 
Permanent  Working  Group,  established  in  2006  and  which  is  considered  to  be  the  National 
Referral Mechanism (NRM). The Permanent Group is regulated under the Law on Combating 
Trafficking in Human Beings (Article 11) and the Decree of the Government (11.04.2014) on 
VOT  Identification  Standards  and  Rules.  The  Permanent  Group  is  thereby  the  authorised 
entity  for  examining  the  situation  of  a  suspected  VOT  and  granting  the  status  of  victim  of 
trafficking to a person within the 48 hours. The NRM ensures that all suspected and identified 
victims  of  trafficking  are  dealt  with  according  to  a  prescribed  standard.  It  offers  protection 
and  assistance  to  all  victims  of  trafficking  regardless  of  whether  they  cooperate  with  law 
enforcement  or  not.  It  covers  procedures  from  the  point  of  first  contact  until  the  point  the 
victim is provided with residence permit, reintegrated within Georgia, repatriated or otherwise 
returned to a city or country of safety. In 2015 6 permanent residents' permits were secured. 
Claims for asylum are also possible for VOTs and legal assistance is made available. 

The  State  Fund  for  Protection  of  and  Assistance  to  (Statutory)  Victims  of  Trafficking  in 
Human Beings was established in 2006 and is funded by the State budget. It exists within the 
Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs under the supervision of a Director appointed 
by  Presidential  decree.  The  State  Fund  is  responsible  for  the  two  victim  shelters  and  the 
financing  of  victim  protection,  assistance  and  rehabilitation  measures.  The  payment  of 
compensation  to  victims  of  trafficking  of  1.000  GEL  is  also  the  responsibility  of  the  State 
Fund.  Of  the  total  of  60  victims  dealt  with  by  the  State  Fund  between  2011-2014,  51  were 
Georgian  nationals and 9 other  nationalities, 23 were  housed in  a shelter,  18 were provided 
with  medical  assistance,  24  with  psychological  assistance,  38  were  provided  with  legal  aid 
and 42received compensation. There were 11 accompanying minors during this period. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In 2013, the Ministry of Health planned to abolish the State Fund. External pressure stopped 
these  plans  but  the  State  Fund’s  role  has  been  further  expanded.  It  is  now  responsible  for 
victims of trafficking and domestic violence but also two elderly care homes, five homes for 
the disabled and one childcare home. The budget has been increased to over 8 million GEL 
and staff increased to 615.  

There  is  a  commitment  to  providing  the  financial  and  human  resources  for  victim  care  but 
there is a need to review how these resources are allocated. In addition to the two shelters in 
Tbilisi  and  Batumi  providing  support  and  safety  to  victims  of  human  trafficking  there  are 
three shelters in Tbilisi, Gori and Kutaisi providing service to victims of domestic violence. 
The funding for the two shelters provided for trafficking victims is increasing: Tbilisi shelter -   
received  in  2013:  112,353  GEL,  while  in  2014:  125,907  GEL.  The  Batumi  shelter  received 
2013:   90,010 GEL, while in 2014: 140,430 GEL.  
The  financial  resources  and  mechanisms  made  available  by  the  government  to  respond  to 
funding  requirements  appear  to  be  sufficient  but  there  is  concern  about  the  use  of  funding 
with  regard  to  the  operation  of  the  shelters,    generally  ensuring  best  value  for  money  and 
ensuring the highest quality, individualised packages of support for VOTs. 

The figures of victims accommodated within the shelters are as follows. In 2014:  there were  
5 adult VOTs and 2 dependants accommodated in the shelters. In 2013: 4 adults, 1 minor and 
1  dependant.  In  2012:  7  adults  and  6  dependants.  To  date  only  one  minor  VOT  has  been 
identified and assisted within Georgia. This was in 2013. It involved a case of trafficking for 
sexual exploitation of a young girl by her Georgian mother. It is estimated that 1200 children 
are involved in street 'work'. The figures for the service are - 2013 – 78 children, 2014 – 350 
children, 2015 – 380 children. Ethnicity as follows - 126 Georgian, 92 Azerbaijani Roma, 3 
Ukrainian, 58 Moldovan Roma, 17 Armenian, 89 undefined. 

A Labour Inspectorate does not currently exist; however, the Georgian authorities announced 
that  a  Labour  Conditions  Inspection  Department  is  to  be  established  within  the  Ministry  of 
Labour, Health and Social Affairs.  25-30 labour inspectors are to be appointed with the role 
of  raising  awareness  of  current  labour  safety  mechanisms,  assessing  labour  conditions  and 
identifying discrimination. Training for new staff will include THB and forced labour.  

Although the numbers of prosecutions have increased year on year since 2012 the level is still 
low.  The  figures  for  the  same  periods  are  as  follows:  in  2013:  11  investigations,  5 
prosecutions, 4 cases sent to court, 2 convictions, 10 statutory victims, 2 convicted traffickers. 
In  2014:  13  investigations,  7  prosecutions,  4  cases  sent  to  court,  4  convictions,  7  statutory 
victims, 6 convicted traffickers. In 2015, from 1 January to 16. March 2015: 5 investigations 
took place, 1 prosecution, 1 case sent to court, 2 convictions, 3 statutory victims, 2 convicted 
traffickers. THB for forced labour continues to be much less visible with fewer investigations, 
prosecutions  and  convictions.  The  figures  for  the  same  periods  are  as  follows:  in  2013  -  3 
investigations,  0  prosecutions,  0  cases  sent  to  court,  0  convictions,  0  statutory  victims,  0 
convicted  traffickers;  in  2014:  4  investigations,  0  prosecutions,  0  cases  sent  to  court,  0 
convictions, 0 statutory victims, 0 convicted traffickers. In 2015, from 1 January to 16 March 
2015: 1 investigation, 0 prosecutions, 0 cases sent to court, 0 convictions, 1 statutory victim, 0 
convicted traffickers. 

Georgia  has  signed  and  ratified  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  against  Trafficking  in 
Human Beings which entered into force on 1 February 2008. The Convention aims to prevent 
trafficking in human beings, protect victims of trafficking, prosecute traffickers, and promote 
17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
co-ordination  of  national  actions  and  international  co-operation.  It  is  the  EU’s  benchmark 
international law and core to the aims of this Convention is the human rights, victim centred 
approach. 

(cid:190)  Effective implementation of the legal framework and national strategy and action 

plan on preventing and fighting corruption;  

To facilitate the development of state anti-corruption policy and the coordinated fight against 
corruption,  the  Anti-Corruption  Council  (ACC)  was  established  in  2008.  Since  2013,  it  has 
become  accountable  to  the  Government  of  Georgia.  In  recent  years,  the  membership  of  the 
ACC  was  expanded  several  times  (last  time  in  4  February  2014),  involving  new  state 
the  business 
agencies,  civil  society  organisations, 
representatives. Currently, the Anti-Corruption Council consists of 47 members, of which 27 
are high-level governmental representatives, 2 members are from the Parliament and 1 from 
the 
international 
organisations, donors and the business associations. The Council is headed by the Minister of 
Justice.  

judiciary;  17  observers  represent 

international  agencies  and  for 

international  NGOs, 

local  and 

The revision of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy adopted in 2010 and the elaboration of 
new Action Plan (2015-2016) was initiated by the ACC in January 2013. Both governmental 
and  non-governmental  sectors  acknowledge  the  transparency  and  the  inclusiveness  of  the 
process. The new strategy and action plan were adopted on 4 February 2015. The main goals 
of the Anti-Corruption Strategy is to develop a unified anti-corruption policy for preventing 
and combatting corruption; to boost public trust by increasing transparency and accountability 
of  public  entities;  to  enhance  civil  society  and  establish  a  transparent  and  accountable 
governance.  The  working  process  was  guided  by  13  strategic  priorities  of  the  fight  against 
corruption,  identified  as  a  result  of  intensive  activity  undertaken  by  the  anti-corruption 
working groups.  

The  Action  Plan  and  the  strategy  would  benefit  from  a  further  refinement  of  the  measures, 
including a focus on measures to improve performance in the area of combating of corruption. 
Prioritisation should be made between various measures included in the action plan. The list 
of indicators should be revised to ensure the measurement of the actual impact rather than the 
mere fulfilment of measures.  

(cid:190)  Ensuring  the  independence  and  efficient  functioning  (including  analytical 
capacity) of anti-corruption bodies, including the Anti-Corruption Inter-Agency 
Coordination Council; ensuring effective measures for addressing corruption in 
areas/sectors identified as being most vulnerable (risk assessments); ensuring and 
maintaining a convincing track-record of corruption cases (from prosecutions to 
final court decisions), including corruption at high-levels, as well as of detection 
and sanctioning of conflicts of interest and unjustified wealth; 

Several bodies are competent for investigating corruption  offences. The Ministry  of Justice, 
the  Anticorruption  Agency  within  the  Ministry  of  Internal  Affairs  and  the  Financial 
Investigation  Service  in  the  Ministry  of  Finance  have  competence  over  investigation  of  the 
staff  of  the  respective  ministries  when  they  detect  corruption  offences.  The  Prosecution 
Service  may  take  over  cases  for  investigation  in  case  there  are  doubts  regarding  the  proper 
investigation  by  the  body  that  detected  the  crime  or  can  start  directly  the  investigations  for 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
corruption  offences  that  were  not  detected  by  the  specialised  bodies.  A  memorandum  of 
understanding was signed and is in operation between these entities.  

The Ministry of Justice has a specialised investigation service competent to investigate crimes 
committed by the employees of the ministry and of the subordinated structure. The Financial 
Investigation Service has competence over corruption crimes in the private sector: bribery in 
the  private  sector,  abuse  of  position  or  function  in  the  public  sectors  and  misuse  or 
embezzlement  in  the  public  sector.  It  is  staffed  with  610  persons,  out  of  which  400  have 
general investigative functions, not specialised for corruption offences.  

The vast majority of corruption crimes in the public sector fall within the competence of the 
Anticorruption Agency of the Ministry of Internal Affairs which was established at the end of 
2012.  The  Agency  is  responsible  for  detecting  corruption  and  launching  investigations,  for 
collection  of  criminal  intelligence  and  the  use  of  special  investigation  measures,  including 
wiretapping  and  obtaining  of  metadata.  The  Agency  investigates  the  cases  of  conflicts  of 
interest in the public service. The Anticorruption Agency is staffed with 256 employees for a 
ministry  with  41.346  employees  and  has  a  budget  of  approximately  266  million  euro. 
Trainings  are  periodically  organised,  including  a  three  month  legal  training  for  criminal 
intelligence activities and inception training is available. Approximately 80 employees of the 
Agency were trained in 2014.  

For  senior  public  officials,  including  ministers  and  members  of  the  Parliament,  the 
competence  for  investigation  of  corruption  stays  with  the  Prosecution  Service.  The  high 
profile of these cases justify this decision and it is up to the prosecutors to decide if they need 
additional assistance in a specific case and to which institution they should turn for help.  

The amendments to the structure of the prosecution service on 30 May 2013, which transfer 
the powers of the Minister of Justice to the chief prosecutor, are welcomed developments, as 
the  Ministry  of  Justice  can  no  longer  interfere  in  individual  cases.  However,  there  are 
concerns regarding the autonomy of the Public Prosecution, particularly with regard to high-
level  corruption  investigations.  Particular  steps  should  be  taken  to  ensure  that  decisions 
concerning  the appointment and dismissal of the Chief  Prosecutor are taken  in  an open and 
transparent  way,  free  of  undue  political  influence.  Work  is  in  progress  to  establish  a 
prosecutorial council, which will have as a primary responsibility to propose by majority of 
2/3 of its members a candidate for the chief prosecutor’s office to the government, which then 
will present the candidate to the Parliament. 

From 30 January 2015, the Office of the Chief Prosecutor has a specialised Anti-Corruption 
Unit. The Unit will investigate and prosecute the most serious cases of crimes under UNCAC 
as  envisaged  by  the  7  July  2013,  Decree  N34  of  the  Minister  of  Justice.  The  unit  will  be 
staffed  with  supervising  prosecutors  and  investigators  of  high  profile  cases.  At  present  the 
unit has 7 investigators and 2 prosecutors and in the future they are planning to employ more. 
It  provides  for  general  competence  of  the  unit  to  investigate a  number  of  corruption  crimes 
(1641, 182 § 2 (d), 220, 221, 332, 333, 337-341 of The Criminal Code of Georgia). However, 
the unit is not limited to high-level public officials, nor is the amount of bribe and value of 
damage  considered  as  a  threshold  for  material  competence.  Under  those  circumstances, 
provisions  should  be  ensured  that  the  resources  and  competences  of  the  unit  are  directed  to 
ensure that high-scale investigations are operationally ensured. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The issue of  enhancing the independence of individual judges  needs  to be addressed.  High-
level  corruption  is  not  an  ordinary  crime:  it  may  involve  some  of  the  most  powerful 
individuals  in  a  society  who  control  important  aspects  of  public  life  and  sometimes  even 
business and media. To obtain results in combating high-level corruption a balance between 
political  decision  and  merit  based  selection  process  for  the  Chief  Prosecutor,  but  more 
importantly independent and competent judges able to perform a proper review of prosecution 
acts.  Though  the  principle  of  life  tenure  was  introduced  it  is  still  unclear  what  will  happen 
with the existing judges (for newly selected judges, the High Council of Judges has developed 
objective  criteria  and  a  transparent  process).  Before  obtaining  life  tenure,  a  three-year 
probation  period  is  envisaged.  However,  the  three-year  probation  period  is  considered  as 
excessively long and raises concerns over the independence of the judges. Judges appointed 
for a limited duration of time (most of them for 10 years) that is soon to expire will have to 
apply  like  any  other  newcomer  to  the  judiciary  for  a  position  and  if  selected,  only  after  the 
three-year probation, they can be appointed for life. 

Although pre-trial arrests are decreasing, the issue remains sensitive. Pre-trial arrest can last 
for nine months and since the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for periodic judicial 
review  of  detention,  the  burden  of  initiating  a  review  of  detention  is  shifted  onto  defence, 
which  has  according  to  international  organisations  an  impact  in  practice  on  the  automatic 
prolongation of detention up to the legal limit of nine months. A draft amendment introducing 
automatic  and  periodic  judicial  review  of  detention  warrant  has  been  adopted  by  the 
government mid-April 2015 and has been submitted to the parliament. The draft will address 
also the duty of the courts to substantiate their decisions on pre-trial detention. Defendants in 
pre-trial arrest –  particularly if towards the end  of  pre-trial arrest term  for  one investigation 
new cases against the same person are started - are more likely to consent to signing of a plea 
bargaining agreement  even  when  the  incriminating evidence  against  him/  her  are  not  strong 
enough. Amendments adopted by the Parliament to reform the plea bargaining system on 24 
July 2014 to increase the transparency of the process and judges' oversight role of its fairness 
are  a  step  in  the  right  direction  and  offer  the  premises  for  improvements  in  practice  in  this 
field; particularly in light of massive allegations of plea bargain abuse before 2012.  

The  Government  adopted  the Civil  Service  Reform  Concept  on  November  2014.  It  aims  at 
establishing  a  politically  neutral,  open  and  effective  civil  service,  a  professional  and  carrier-
based  system,  as  well  as  a  fair  remuneration  and  classification  system.  The  Civil  Service 
Bureau  (CSB)  has  presented  a  detailed  action  plan  regarding  the  implementation  of  its  tasks 
with  clear  deadlines  and  responsible  persons.  Furthermore,  according  to  the  Georgian 
authorities,  it  is  planned  to  have  job  descriptions  for  all  central  state  agencies  by  the  end  of 
2015. In addition, the role of the CSB has been increased in the civil service human resources 
selection  process.  Two  new  departments  (Civil  Service  Institutional  Set-up  and  Practice 
Generalisation  Department  and  Civil  Service  Human  Resources  Department)  were  created  to 
tackle the implementation of reform and the top management of CSB was expanded by adding 
position  of  another  deputy  director.  Additional  safeguards  should  be  included  in  the  law  to 
ensure the independence of the Bureau. 

With regard to the protection of whistle-blowers, while detailed provisions on whistleblowing 
exist  in  the  law  on  conflict  of  interest  and  corruption  in  public  service,  no  examples  of 
whistleblowing exist until now. The Civil Service Bureau has planned an extensive awareness 
program  with  the  aim  of  helping  civil  servant  to  better  understand  their  rights.  A  safe 
environment should be created in order to ensure the possibility for whistle-blowers to report 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
the crime and ensure that whistle-blowers will not suffer detrimental consequences as a result 
of reporting.  

Asset declarations by public officials can be a valuable tool in combating corruption.  

More than 5000 senior officials submit declarations of assets and they are published online on 
www.declaration.gov.ge.  This  publication  mechanism  that  exists  since  1998  and  became 
entirely  online  driven  in  February  2010  is  a  very  good  transparency  practice  which  allows 
everybody to have insight into the declared wealth of senior officials. The next step is to set-
up a verification mechanism that allows for in-depth checks and provides for sanctions to be 
applied in case problems are identified. The Georgian authorities reported that on 4 February 
2015, the Anti-Corruption Council created a special Working Group mandated to elaborate a 
monitoring mechanism concept. The Working Group will present the draft amendments to the 
Anticorruption  Council  in  June  2015.  Once  the  Council  approves  the  draft  amendments,  it 
will be submitted to the Government for their approval.  

While publishing declarations of wealth is essential to ensure transparency in the public life, 
systematic  check  of  these  statements  is  equally  important.  Apart  from  accuracy  checks, 
verification  of  assets  disclosure  forms  could  reveal  unjustified  enrichment,  conflicts  of 
interests  or  incompatibilities.  Distinct  sanctions  should  be  included  in  the  law  for  each  of 
these cases allowing for fair and proportional treatment. At present there is reliance on NGOs 
that  they  will  make  best  use  of  the  available  information  to  check  the  accuracy  of  wealth 
statements. 

Public procurement is perceived as a sensitive area for corruption. The Georgian procurement 
system has undergone significant reform over the last years. Since 2010, the so-called “paper 
based  tenders”  were  fully  replaced  by  the  electronic  procurement  system.  Though  there  is  a 
very transparent electronic procurement system, not all tenders have to follow the transparent 
route. The Government may decide to exempt itself from the use of the procurement process 
and  use  a  direct  contracting  procedure.  In  2012  the  value  of  direct  contracting,  mostly  for 
construction contracts was around 45%  and in 2013, around  39% of the total amount spent on 
public  procurement  respectively.  In  2014  the  share  of  contracts  concluded  as  a  result  of  an 
open  electronic  tenders  through  eProcurement  amounted  to  68%  of  the  total  value  of  public 
contracts and, accordingly, the percentage of simplified procurement went down to 32%. This 
is  a  positive  trend  which  needs  to  continue,  particularly  in  the  light  of  earlier  criticism  by 
international anticorruption watchdogs.  

The  competence  for  monitoring  political  finances  belongs  to  the  State  Audit  Office  of 
Georgia.  The  State  Audit  Office  was  created  in  2012  and  replaced  the  Chamber  of  Control. 
According  to  the  Georgian  authorities  the  SAO  received  in  2013-2014  2706  declarations 
related to political funding. In 2013 the State Audit Office received 56 annual declarations and 
118 election reports. In 2014 the State Audit Office received 57 annual declarations and 2475 
election reports. After perceived politicisation of the SAO (as assessed by ODIHR) in 2012, 
the SAO resumed its functioning with renewed neutrality.  

(cid:190)  Development  of  effective  ethical  codes  accompanied  by  sanctions  applicable  to 
public officials (elected and appointed)  and notably regarding elected officials at 
central  and  local  level,  law  enforcement  and  judiciary;  ensuring  appropriate 
capacity,  specialisation  and  training  of  law  enforcement  and  judiciary  to  deal 
with corruption cases in an efficient manner;  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As regards the development of effective ethical codes accompanied by sanctions applicable to 
public officials, although a separate ethics code is not being developed, the new Law on Civil 
Service based on the Civil Service Reform Concept will determine comprehensive provisions 
on types of disciplinary infringements and sanctions, as well as classification of infringements 
into minor, relatively minor or gross violations, taking into consideration the specific details 
of the civil service. Additionally, guidelines on ethics for civil servants and a curriculum for 
trainers  are  being  developed.  After  the  completion  of  the  workshop,  the  newly  recognised 
trainers will conduct training for public servants on ethics. 

(cid:190)  Implementation  of  the  legislation  for  the  prevention  of  money-laundering  and 
financing  of  terrorism,  including  on  reporting  obligations;  implementation  of 
relevant  legislation  on  search,  freezing,  seizure  and  confiscation  of  assets  of 
criminals (including of the provisions addressing cross-border aspects); 

Georgian anti-money laundering (AML) and counter terrorist financing (CFT) legislation has 
gradually evolved during the last decade and the necessary structures and legal provisions are 
mostly  in  place.    The  Georgian  legal  and  institutional  system  is  subject  to  periodic  and 
thorough examination by external actors, most notably the Council of Europe Committee of 
Experts  on  the  Evaluation  of  Anti-Money  Laundering  Measures  and  the  Financing  of 
Terrorism (Moneyval). The recommendations by Moneyval have significantly contributed to 
identifying  and  overcoming  the  deficiencies.  Georgian  authorities  seem  to  have  addressed 
most  of  the  recommendations  contained  in  the  last  Moneyval  report  (dating  back  to  3  July 
2012), nevertheless, Georgia is still subject to the follow-up process. 

The implementation of the Strategy and Action Plan for Combating Money Laundering and 
Terrorism  Financing  adopted  in  March  2014  seems  to  be  satisfactory.  Inter-agency 
cooperation is working under the umbrella of the relevant Inter-Agency Council. 

Georgia  has  set  up  an  administrative-type  Financial  Intelligence  Unit  (FIU),  the  Financial 
Monitoring Service (FMS). When it comes to criminal investigation, money-laundering cases 
are  forwarded  to  the  Prosecution  Service,  while  the  Counter  Terrorist  Centre  of  the  MoI 
carries out criminal investigation in terrorist financing cases. 

The  FMS  was  created  in  2003  and  became  operational  from  the  1st  of  January  2004.  The 
FMS  is  a  so-called  legal  entity  of  public  law.  It  is  operating  at  the  facilities  and  under  the 
technical support of the National Bank of Georgia. Recently, the right to appoint the Head of 
FMS was transferred to the Government from the President due to constitutional changes. The 
FMS  is  an  independent  body  in  its  activities,  not  subordinated  to  any  other  body  and/or 
official. It is required to submit a report on performed activities to the Government of Georgia 
once  a  year.  The  functional  and  financial  independence  is  guaranteed  by  law.  The  annual 
budget is EUR 880.000 for 2015 (EUR 15.000 increase compared to 2014). FMS has a staff 
of 32 persons (compared to 31 reported in 2014), however, currently 6 posts were reported as 
vacant (compared to 7 reported in 2014).  

FMS staff shows professionalism, the necessary material preconditions for effective operation 
seem  to  be  in  place.  The  workflow  has  been  largely  automatised  since  2012.  Except  for 
lawyers,  all  suspicious  transaction  reports  (STRs)  are  sent  electronically  (and  even  for 
lawyers,  the  written  STRs  are  forwarded  to  FMS  in  encrypted,  electronic  format  by  the 
Georgian  Bar  Association).  The  analytical  software  has  recently  been  renewed.  The  FMS 
22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
claims that by the help of the available IT tools they can handle the volume of STRs without 
any problem.  FMS closely cooperates with all relevant ministries and agencies and has access 
to the necessary databases. The dissemination towards the Prosecution Service does not take 
place on-line. 

The  number  of  suspicious  transaction  reports  (STRs)  was  3593  in  2012,  5778  in  2013  and 
2497 in 2014 (resulting in 83 investigations submitted in 2014, compared to 55 in 2013 and 
12 in 2012). This indicates an improvement of the reporting culture, just as in analyst work. 
The  FIU  is  actively  carrying  out  international  cooperation,  both  incoming  and  outgoing 
requests are taking place in practice (27 outgoing and 25 incoming request were reported for 
2014). The FMS indicated good cooperation with European counterparts.  

The  number  of  prosecutions  and  convictions  relating  to  money  laundering  are  quite  low 
compared  to  the  number  of  cases  disseminated  by  the  FMS  (0  cases  prosecuted  out  of  12 
reports in 2012, 11 prosecutions with 5 convictions out of 55 in 2013 and 7 prosecutions with 
11 convictions out of 83 in 2014). Georgian authorities claim that the reasons behind are the 
high number of still ongoing cases sometimes subject to international cooperation and the fact 
that in some cases, several reports are related to the same criminal activity.      

An  area  of  particular  concern  is  the  control  of  cross-border  cash  movements  where  there 
seems to be little progress compared to the shortcomings identified in 2014 and the envisaged 
legislative amendments do not seem to remedy those issues either (i.e. sanctions).  

the 

The Georgian criminal justice system as regards search, freezing, seizure and confiscation of 
criminal  assets  meets 
level  of  practical 
the  European  standards,  nevertheless, 
implementation  of  the  existing  legal  possibilities  may  be  improved.  The  statistics  Georgian 
authorities  have  provided  concerning  the  use  of  freezing,  seizing  and  confiscation  measures 
indicate  that  the  amount  actually  and  finally  confiscated  is  much  lower  than  the  amount 
frozen or seized, even if the presence of still ongoing procedures may be an explanation for 
that to some extent.  The overall (although not final) statistics for 2014 indicate assets frozen 
in  the  value  of  EUR  49  261  911  (out  of  which  EUR  13  813  306  frozen  in  10  money-
laundering cases) and assets confiscated in the value of EUR 14 539 695 (out of which EUR 
644  334  confiscated  in  9  money-laundering  cases).  These  figures  raise  some  concerns  as 
regards  the  consequent  application  of  asset  recovery  measures  in  cases  other  than  those 
particularly  related  to  economic  crime,  although  Georgian  authorities  confirmed  the 
widespread use of financial investigation in criminal proceedings, especially in cases related 
to organised crime. 

Taking into account the geographical location, the difficulties caused by the lack of Georgian 
state control over the breakaway regions and the obvious proximity of jihadist groups in the 
Northern Caucasus region of Russia on the one hand, and in Syria on the other, the verified 
involvement of some Georgian nationals in ISIS with some indications of supporters networks 
present in Georgia itself, Georgian authorities (who are under any circumstances well aware 
of all these factors) are encouraged to closely monitor this issue and raise awareness among 
all actors concerned.     

(cid:190)  Implementation  of  the  national  anti-drug  strategy  and  action  plan,  ensuring 
adequate working of the Inter-Agency Coordination Council on Combating Drug 
Abuse,  making the information on drug seizures and persons involved accessible 
at  border  crossing  points,  and  further  developing  cooperation  and  information 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
exchange  with  relevant  international  bodies  in  the  drug  field;  establishing 
cooperation with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 
(EMCDDA); 

Because  of  its  location  bridging  Asia  and  Europe,  Georgia  is  a  transit  corridor  for  drugs 
produced elsewhere. Georgian authorities are aware that their territory is used as a transit for 
drug smuggling towards Europa mainly via mainly the Black Sea ports of Ukraine, but also to 
some extent those of Romania and Bulgaria, the source being in Afghanistan and the initial 
transit route via Armenia and Azerbaijan or Turkey. 

The  national  drug  strategy  and  the  action  plan  for  2014-2015  were  adopted  by  the  Inter-
Agency Coordinating Council on Combating Drug Abuse on 4 December 2013. The Council 
is  composed  of  Ministries  and  judicial  authorities.  The  Council  also  involves  NGOs  in  the 
elaboration  of  strategies  and  action  plans.  Actions  undertaken  by  the  different  agencies  are 
reported  to  the  Secretariat  of  Inter-Agency  Coordinating  Council.  A  National  Drug 
Monitoring  Centre  will  start  operating  in  mid-2015,  which  will  be  composed  by  the 
representatives  from  the  relevant  state  agencies,  NGOs  and  academia.  The  centre  will  carry 
out  research  activities  to  support  the  Council  to  make  evidence  based  decisions.  The  centre 
will serve as EMCDDA focal point in Georgia and will provide annual country reports. 

On 15 March 2014 new legislative amendments entered into force that criminalised the illicit 
traffic in some psychoactive substances being used as main substance for cooking home-made 
drugs.  As  a  result,  the  use  of  so  called  “crocodile”  (home-made  drug)  has  decreased  by 
approximately 99% over the last months. A package of legislative amendments related to new 
psychoactive substances entered into force on 1 May 2014.  

Currently a Working Group is drafting amendments to the law that would set the amounts that 
define  "small  quantity"  of  possession  for  substances  that  are  widespread  in  Georgia  and  to 
modify  the  list  of  controlled  substances  in  line  with  international  standards.  An  issue  of 
concern are the low thresholds for the criminalisation of own use, as it raises the question of 
whether addicted or overdosed users have a realistic and a non-discriminatory possibility for 
access to medical treatments. 

The  effectiveness  of  the  new  laws  is  evidenced  by  the  achieved  outcomes  -  in  comparison 
with the previous year, in 2014 the illicit traffic of new psychoactive substances has decreased 
by  over  90%.  The  control  at  border  crossing  points  has  been  strengthened  by  new  and 
sufficient equipment and multi-agency working groups. As a result of these measures in July 
2014, officers of the MoI arrested a truck, while crossing the Georgian border, with up to 3 
tons  of  liquid  heroin,  containing  589  kg  of  heroin,  more  than  2  kg  of  codeine  and  12 
kilograms of morphine.  

In  the  area  of  prevention,  since  March  2014  the  MoI  is  conducting  a  wide-scale  anti-drug 
campaign  in  order  to  increase  awareness  concerning  the  abuse  of  drugs  and  psychotropic 
substances and to promote healthy lifestyle among the population. Within the framework of 
the  campaign,  the  Minister  of  Internal  Affairs  and  other  representatives  of  the  Ministry, 
together  with  physician-narcologists,  organised  a  number  of  meetings  with  the  students  of 
higher  educational  institutions  and  pupils  of  public  schools.  A  broad  media-campaign  has 
been  carried  out.  Harmful  habits  (including  drug  abuse)  are  reflected  in  the  National 
Educational Plan in subjects related to nature sciences, social sciences and sport.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
There  are  around  40.000  drugs  users  in  Georgia  most  of  them  being  injecting  drugs  users. 
Poly-substance users and home-made drug "cooking" are rising problems, but regular updates 
made to the legislation have put psychotropic drugs under prescription and have decreased the 
problem  of  "cooking".  Another  positive  development  is  that  ambulance  doctors  are  not 
anymore obliged to report overdoses to the police. In 2014, the police performed urine tests 
on  50864  persons,  out  of  which  36859  tested  negative  and  14005  tested  positive  for  drugs. 
Being a first time user, the punishment is a fine while the second time will lead to criminal 
proceedings.  The  decision  on  conducting  the  test and  the  extraction  of  the  samples  is  made 
when  a  police  officer  has  a  reasonable  ground  to  believe,  that  a  person  is  under  drug 
influence. The tests are performed without judiciary oversight. The overall approach on drugs 
gives the impression that the main focus of the drug policy is on the users rather than on the 
drug dealers and distributors. 

In the area of treatment and rehabilitation, the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs 
has implemented  protocols  and  treatment standards for  toxic psychosis, caused  inter alia  by 
psychoactive  substances  in  order  to  increase  effectiveness  of  detoxification  treatment.  An 
updated  drug  addiction  state  program  was  approved  by  the  Government  of  Georgia  in 
December  2014  with  a  budget  of  GEL  4388500.  The  drug-addiction  state  program  was 
amended  with  a  focus  on  increasing  the  cost-effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  program 
resources.  A  methadone  detoxification  program  for  opioid-addicts  is  available  for  every 
prisoner.  In case of the consent of the opioid-addict, they are provided with services in two 
penitentiary  institutions,  one  in  Tbilisi  and  one  in  Kutaisi.  In  2014,  453  prisoners  received 
methadone detoxification service. There is a concern regarding the sustainability of the opiate 
treatment program, mainly issues of financing and accessibility. The drugs users should have 
direct  and  when  possible,  immediate  access  to  the  program  and  should  not  be  imprisoned 
while waiting for the start of the treatment. 

In the area of harm reduction, the Georgian Harm Reduction Network ensures the exchange 
and supply of safe injecting instruments, disseminating means for safe sex, means for treating 
veins, disinfection means and naloxone. In 2014 it provided services to 37895 persons, most 
of them injecting drugs users, and distributed 7389 units of Naloxone, 3300 injection syringes 
and 300000 condoms.  

Since 11 August  2014,  ambulance doctors are not obliged to report police on cases of drug 
consumption in urgent situations (overdosing). Additionally, treatment of overdosing is now 
funded from the state budget for individuals infected by HIV and for those who are under the 
poverty line. On the other hand, as the autopsy is not compulsory in Georgia, there is lack of 
statistics on deaths caused by drugs overdose.  

In  2014  representatives  of  Georgia  attended  international  conferences  organised  by 
EMCDDA and there was exchange of high-level visits between Georgia and EMCDDA. As a 
result, parties agreed to enhance existing cooperation and in December 2014, in response to 
the  request  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  of  Georgia/Head  of  the  Inter-agency  Council  the 
EMCDDA’s  Management  Board  gave  the  mandate  to  the  Director  of  the  EMCDDA  to 
negotiate  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  between  the  EMCDDA  and  Georgia.  The  first 
draft of MoU was provided to the Georgian side in February 2015 and is under examination. 
On 15-17 April, 2015 Georgia hosted an EMCDDA regional conference for the EaP states on 
New Psychoactive Substances and Early Warning Systems. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(cid:190)  Sound  implementation  of  relevant  UN  and  Council  of  Europe  Conventions,  as 

well as GRECO recommendations in the above mentioned areas; 

The implementation of this benchmark has been evaluated in the other sections of this report. 

(cid:190)  Provision  of  sufficient  financial  and  human  resources,  including  adequate 
training  programmes,  to  ensure  effective  implementation  of  all  the  measures 
mentioned above; 

The implementation of this benchmark has been evaluated in the other sections of this report. 

2.3.2.  Judicial co-operation in criminal matters 

(cid:190)  Sound 

implementation  of 

judicial 
assistance, judicial cooperation in criminal matters and protection of children (in 
particular Council of Europe Conventions); 

international  conventions  concerning 

The central authority is entrusted to receive and process the incoming/outgoing requests; this 
facilitates the optimisation of the use of resources and improves the consistency in managing 
the  related  legal  and  factual  issues.  This  authority  is  staffed  by  qualified  professionals  in 
adequate  number  who  are  rationally  distributed  in  the  different  areas  of  international  co-
operation. 

The channels and means of communication of the incoming/outgoing requests of international 
co-operation are being improved; they are similar to those which are used by most countries, 
including EU Member States. 

The central authority shows a good capacity to collect and process the data on the flow of the 
various incoming/outgoing requests of international co-operation. 

The judiciary retains a crucial role in any international co-operation related decision where the 
fundamental rights of individuals are at stake. 

(cid:190)  Ensuring a high level of effectiveness of judicial co-operation in criminal matters 
of  judges  and  prosecutors,  including  on  extradition  matters,  with  the  EU 
Member States and third countries; 

The  flow  of  incoming/outgoing  requests  of  international  co-operation  is  significant.  The 
figures  show  that  throughout  2013-2014  this  flow  is  growing  in  the  areas  of  mutual  legal 
assistance,  extradition  and  transfer  of  sentenced  persons.  The  timeframe  in  which  the 
incoming requests of international co-operation are executed prima facie is reasonable; in any 
case this average time is no longer than that which several countries, including EU MS, take 
to  grant  co-operation.  With  reference  to  2013  statistics  (the  latest  available)  the  degree  of 
acceptance of the incoming requests of mutual legal assistance and extradition is fairly high; 
in the meantime no case of refusal shows any apparent anomaly; both elements can be taken 
as indicators of the openness of Georgian system to grant international co-operation.  

No case is known where the competent authorities, by granting or refusing the co-operation, 
seriously harmed the general interests of justice or the fundamental rights of individuals. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In 2014 the overall number of requests was 1712, including 1637 incoming and 75 outgoing 
requests. Georgia granted assistance further to 568 incoming requests whilst it refused 300 of 
these;  769  are  still  pending.  Foreign  countries  granted  assistance  to  38  outgoing  requests 
whilst they refused to 3 of them; 34 requests are still pending. 

The  flow  of  incoming  and  outgoing  requests  involved  mostly  Turkey  (83%),  the 
Commonwealth of Independent States (11%) and the European Union Member States (4,5%). 

EU Member States forwarded 57 requests to Georgia which granted assistance to 35 whilst it 
refused to 11 of these; 11 requests are still pending. Georgia forwarded 20 requests to EU MS 
which granted assistance to 6 whilst they refused to 1 of these; 13 requests are still pending. 

The  majority  of  incoming  requests  were  related  to  a  number  of  criminal  offences  of 
high/medium  seriousness  such  as  smuggling,  theft,  forgery  of  documents,  bodily  harm, 
irregular  immigration,  pimping,  fraud,  corruption,  drug  dealing/trafficking,  armed  robbery, 
murder, smuggling of immigrants, trafficking in human beings. 

As  regards  extraditions  in  2014,  the  overall  number  of  requests  of  extradition  was  70, 
including  34  incoming  and  36  outgoing  requests.  Of  the  34  incoming  requests,  Georgia 
accepted 16 whilst it rejected one and postponed 3; 14 requests are still pending. The rejected 
request  concerned  a  Georgian  national  in  the  absence  of  reciprocity  and  the  majority  of  the 
pending  requests  have  been  delayed  because  of  asylum  proceedings.  As  regards  the  36 
outgoing requests, foreign countries accepted 7 whilst they rejected 4 and postponed one; 24 
requests are still pending. 

As  regards  transfers  of  sentenced  persons,  there  were  41  requested  transfers  to  Georgia  in 
2014, most of them from Russia and Turkey. Two requests were from Austria and one from 
Spain. 

(cid:190)  In accordance with the procedures in the EUROJUST decision, conclusion of an 
agreement or working arrangement with EUROJUST, including on the exchange 
of information in common cases and the processing of personal data; 

Since  January  2015,  Georgia  is  on  the  priority  list  of  countries  with  which  Eurojust  is 
negotiating a cooperation agreement. A condition for such an agreement is a robust regime of 
data  protection  rules  and  Eurojust  has  launched  its  data  protection  assessment.  The 
preliminary findings are positive as to the recent amendments introduced in the law on data 
protection, which address the issue of the applicability of the law to the judicial sector and the 
strengthened powers of the Personal Data Protection Inspector. 

2.3.3.  Law enforcement co-operation 

(cid:190)  Ensuring  a  high  level  of  operational  and  special  investigative  capacity  of  law 
enforcement  services  and  its  consistent  and  efficient  use  to  tackle  cross-border 
crime; 

The  Criminal  Procedural  Law  provides  LEAs  and  Prosecutors  with  a  set  of  tools  compliant 
with  International  and  European  standards.  The  Procedural  Code  envisages  interrogations, 
identifications,  searches,  seizures,  confiscation,  inspections,  investigative  experiments, 
exhumation  as  well  as  covert  investigative  actions  (inter  alia  wiretapping).  Covert 
27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
investigative  actions,  which  require  court  order  and  which  are  envisaged  by  the  Criminal 
Procedure Code are the following: wiretapping, withdrawal and fixation of information from 
communication  channel,  control  over  mail-telegraph  messages  (except  diplomatic  mail), 
covert  video-audio  recording,  recording  videos  or  photos  and  electronic  surveillance  by 
technical means. According to the Georgian legislation, controlled deliveries and undercover 
operations fall under criminal intelligence activities and are envisaged by the Law of Georgia 
on  Criminal  Intelligence  Activity.  In  order  to  conduct  these  measures  no  court  order  is 
required.  

According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the MoI Operative-Technical Department is the 
only authorised body to implement covert investigative activities (wiretapping, eavesdropping 
and  etc)  at  a  technical  level  in  order  to  minimise  the  risk  of  illegal  interceptions  and  easily 
identify alleged perpetrator. After the wiretapping is ensured technically, the actual listening 
to the wiretapping is carried out by the operative personnel of the requesting agency. The MoI 
Operative-Technical  Department  provides  technical  support  for  investigative  as  well  as  for 
national security agencies in this regard. 

Georgian LEAs demonstrated the capability of their investigators to use special investigative 
measures.  Investigations  and  prosecutions  carried  out  by  means  of  undercover  cooperation 
and  wiretapping  seem  to  be  recurring.  Controlled  delivery  methods  have  not  been  used  yet, 
but controlled purchases did occur. For instance, a case on counterfeit currency smuggling has 
been  solved  through  the  deployment  of  two  MoI  undercover  agents  in  Sarpi,  thanks  to  a 
multiagency investigation and the use of controlled purchase.    

(cid:190)  Ensuring  a  high  level  of  effectiveness  of  law  enforcement  co-operation  among 
relevant national agencies - especially border guards, police, customs officers -, as 
well as cooperation with the judicial authorities; 

The  relevant  public  actors  responsible  for  preventing  and  tackling  organised  crime,  drug 
trafficking and law enforcement co-operation, have at their disposal a well-equipped toolbox 
(legislation,  regulations,  policies,  expertise  and  special  investigative  measures).  Upper 
echelons  as  well  as  lower  rank  personnel  (especially  investigators  and  prosecutors)  follow 
European and international best practices.  

The work of the Interagency Coordinating Council for Combating Organised Crime and the 
provisions  of  the  National  Strategy  on  combatting  crime  have  ensured  a  high  level  of 
cooperation  between  every  law-enforcement  agency  and  with  the  prosecution,  for  example 
through joint investigations, strong communication and confidence between prosecutors and 
investigators, and a clear awareness of  respective agencies'  tasks.  In all  high-profile cases a 
joint  prosecutor-investigator  team  is  established.  The  most  frequent  cases  can  concern  drug 
smuggling,  money  laundering,  skimming,  counterfeit  currency,  weapon  smuggling  and  civil 
asset  recovery  procedure.    The  e-flow  and  info-flow  systems  ensure  a  secure,  digital, 
paperless communications among all law-enforcement and prosecution bodies.  

Additionally,  a  memorandum  of  understanding  (MoU)  between  MoI,  MoJ,  Ministry  of 
Finance,  Chief  Prosecutor’s  Office  and  Financial  Monitoring  Service  on  Inter-Agency 
Cooperation on Law Enforcement issues was signed by the heads of aforementioned agencies 
and  entered  into  force  on  16  May  2013.  The  MoU  regulates  the  cooperation  between  law-
enforcement  agencies in  the  area  of  fighting national and transnational crimes and provided 
for the establishment of a Working Group. In order to facilitate the exchange of information, 
28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  parties  exchange  and  regularly  update  contact  points  and  agree  on  the  use  of  secure 
encrypted  e-mail;  the  memorandum  also  regulates  the  creation  of  ad  hoc  joint  investigative 
groups on the basis of the request from one of the parties. 

The Central Criminal Police Department of the MoI has an Analysis and Strategic Division 
composed of a Unit for Data Processing and Information Supply, an Analysis Unit and a Unit 
for Strategic Development. The structure was established in order to study new modi operandi 
and tools of criminals, face new types of offences and fill-in gaps on development of strategic 
policing, ensure data collection, crime analysis and the production of knowledge tools to be 
submitted  to  the  policy  makers  and  to  be  disseminated  to  the  police  community  in  order  to 
facilitate strategic planning.  

Nevertheless,  even  if  Georgian  LEAs  are  provided  with  modern  automated  risk  systems, 
electronic  databases  and  information  exchange  tools,  it  seems  that  they  do  not  draw  up  a 
formal,  all-encompassing  knowledge  product  to  be  considered  as  a  threat  assessment  or,  at 
least, a situation report on crime with the purpose to identify new criminal trends. Currently, 
there is no Intelligence Led policing (ILP) model to be used as a National Intelligence Model 
(NIM) and hence there are no handling codes, dissemination rules and source of information 
standards.  With  databases,  crime  maps  and  the  data  storage  systems  at  their  disposals, 
Georgian  LEAs  should  be  very  close  to  achieve  a  good  ground  for  analysing  crime  in  a 
proactive way in order to identify most relevant threats and set up their priorities through an 
independent, coherent, logic and analytical way. A certain risk exists for criminal investments 
as well as criminal infiltration in public contracts and the legal economy. 

(cid:190)  Strengthened bilateral and multilateral operational law enforcement cooperation 
agreements  or  working  arrangements,  namely  with  INTERPOL,  including  by 
sharing  on  time  relevant  information  and  conducting  joint  investigations  and 
operations  with  competent  law  enforcement  authorities  of  EU  Member  States 
and  third  countries,  in  line  with  data  protection  requirements  and  through  the 
appropriate channels; 

The  International  Relation  Department  is  responsible  for  non-operative  international  police 
cooperation  through  the  Bilateral  and  Multilateral  Cooperation  Unit  (BMCU)  established  in 
2012,  such  as  trainings,  seminars,  workshops,  study  visits,  elaboration  of  best  practices  and 
joint cooperation programs with partners.  

The  International  Criminal  Cooperation  Centre  has  been  established  in  2012  under  the 
umbrella  of  the  Central  Criminal  Police  Department  of  the  MoI.  It  is  in  charge  for  the 
implementation  of  relevant  provisions  of  the  Law  on  International  Law  Enforcement 
Cooperation  and  international  (universal,  multilateral  and  bilateral)  agreements  concerning 
international  operative  police  cooperation.  Since  December  2014  it  also  includes  Regional 
Cooperation  Unit  responsible  for  the  cooperation  within  GUAM,  BSEC  and  SELEC,  hence 
uniting all operative international cooperation units under one Centre. 

The International Relations Department and International Criminal Cooperation Centre of the 
MoI  ensure  good  levels  of  international  operative  cooperation  through  bilateral  and 
multilateral  understandings  and  agreements.  The  establishing  of  a  Personal  Data  Protection 
Inspector  Office  and  its  new  competences  on  home  affairs  issue  should  improve  partners’ 
trust in the Georgian authorities. The active participation in the Millennium OICP INTERPOL 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project and the latest letters to some Member States in order to arrange meetings on operative 
cooperation are good examples of Georgian readiness and commitment.  

The  Georgian  Authorities  cooperate  with  their  international  partners  within  the  INTERPOL 
Project  Millennium,  aimed  to  tackle  the  Transnational  Eurasian  Organised  Crime  (TEOC). 
Working  groups  on  OC  ("Thieves  in  Law"  and  "criminal  circles")  have  been  established  in 
2014 with Austrian and German LEAs. Georgia is planning to request 14 other EU Member 
States to establish bilateral working groups as well. 

The  established  framework  for  international  cooperation  supports  all  the  needs  for 
cooperation.  However  there  is  always  room  and  need  to  enhance  the  awareness  inside 
Georgian LEAs of possibilities as well as the readiness to use them. 

(cid:190)  Conclusion  of  an  operational  cooperation  agreement  with  EUROPOL  ensuring 

an adequate level of data protection; 

In July 2014, Europol initiated the process of preparation for negotiations for the conclusion 
of  an  operational  cooperation  agreement  with  Georgia.  In  September  2014  a  detailed 
questionnaire  on  personal  data  protection  was  submitted  to  the  Georgian  side,  and  then 
followed  by  an  additional  questionnaire  sent  in  November  2014.  Based  on  the  answers 
provided by Georgia, Europol data protection experts will visit Georgia by mid-2015 in order 
to  assess  the  personal  data  protection  regime  of  Georgia.  Following  the  mission,  an 
assessment  report  will  be  drafted,  based  on  which  Europol  will  take  a  decision  on 
commencement  of  negotiations  on  a  draft  operational  cooperation  agreement.  In  this  field 
further  improvements  in  data  protection  (handling  code,  evaluation  of  sources  and 
information, dissemination rules) will help to achieve a positive decision by Europol in order 
to  sign  an  operational  agreement.  The  prompt  reply  to  the  questionnaires  submitted  by 
Europol should be evaluated at this stage as a positive step.  

2.3.4.  Data protection 

(cid:190)  Implementation of the legislation on the  protection of personal data  both in  the 

public and private sectors; 

The  necessary  basic  arrangements  are  in  place  for  securing  compliance  with  the  data 
protection  law.  The  arrangements  for  the  appointment  of  the  Personal  Data  Protection 
Inspector  ('Inspector')  were  amended  in  August  2014  to  strengthen  the  Inspector’s 
independence and give the decision on the selection of the Inspector to the Parliament rather 
than  to  the  Government.  The  Inspector  is  appointed  for  the  relatively  short  period  of  three 
years and may be reappointed for only one further consecutive term.  The data protection law 
specifies  that  the  Inspector’s  duties  are  incompatible  with  membership  of  any  state  or  local 
self-government  bodies  or  any  post  within  state  service.  The  Inspector  may  engage  in  no 
remunerative work, except scientific, educational or artistic activity. The data protection law 
sets  out  the  limited  circumstances  in  which  the  Inspector  may  be  removed  from  office.  
Article 31 of the data protection law says expressly that the Inspector is independent and not 
subordinated to any official or body. Any attempt to influence or interfere with the Inspector’s 
activities is punishable by law. To help ensure independence, the State is required to provide 
adequate working conditions for the Inspector. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Inspector has the power to carry out inspections of data controllers and data processors, 
either on her own initiative or at the request of an interested person. If the Inspector finds a 
breach of the data protection law, she has a range of powers to order remedial action.  These 
include requiring the controller or processor to change their practice,  ordering  the  blocking, 
deletion or depersonalisation of the data, or ordering the temporary or permanent cessation of 
the  processing.  If  the  requirements  are  not  complied  with,  the  Inspector  has  the  power  to 
apply  to  court.  If  the  Inspector  identifies  an  administrative  offence,  she  has  the  power  to 
impose an administrative penalty herself. 

The  Inspector  has  carried  out  18  inspections  involving  24  data  controllers.  Ten  inspections 
involved the public sector and 8 involved the private sector. About two thirds were carried out 
following  complaints  (of  which  the  Inspector  received  28),  and  the  remainder  were  on  the 
Inspector’s own initiative. The Inspector made written recommendations in 8 cases, imposed 
a fine in 4 cases, required data to be blocked in 6 cases, required data to be erased in 3 cases, 
and required processing to be terminated in 20 cases. If the Inspector believes that a criminal 
offence  is  being  committed  she  is  obliged  to  notify  an  authorised  state  body.  Under  the 
Criminal Code of Georgia, the illegal collection, storage, use, dissemination or disclosure of 
private or family secrets, private life information or personal data causing serious damage is 
punishable with a term of imprisonment of up to 3 years, or 7 years if there are aggravating 
circumstances. Three cases (involving 4 individuals) were heard under this provision in 2014, 
and all resulted in convictions. 

The  data  protection  law  requires  each  data  controller  to  maintain  a  catalogue  of  all  the 
personal  data  filing  systems  held  by  the  controller.  The  Inspector  has  received  information 
about  5,032  catalogues  from  1,936  organisations.    Of  these,  1,856  were  public  sector 
organisations and 80 were private sector organisations.   

Organisations in both the public and private sectors reported a good working relationship with 
the Inspector and that they readily sought her help on data protection matters. According to 
representatives from the private sector the law has had a positive impact by encouraging them 
to  handle  personal  data  better.  Whereas  formerly  they  had  had  regard  only  to  the  need  for 
business  confidentiality,  they  now  had  a  much  better  appreciation  of  the  need  for  good 
personal data handling policies and a motive to implement them. They worked closely with 
the  Inspector  in  revising  their  internal  arrangements  –  for  example  by  reviewing  their 
contracts and developing data protection policies, as well as training key staff -  and felt that 
they had a good understanding of what was required. 

As  regards  international  co-operation,  the  Inspector  is  a  member  of  the  Council  of  Europe 
Consultative  Committee  on  Data  Protection  (T-PD),  and  participated  in  meetings  of  the 
Council of Europe’s Ad Hoc Committee on Data Protection (CAHDATA). 

(cid:190)  Ensure  efficient  functioning  of  the  independent  data  protection  supervisory 
authority both in the public and private sectors also through the allocation of the 
necessary human and financial resources; 

The Inspector’s funding comes from the State budget. She draws up her own spending plans 
and  submits  them  to  the  Ministry  of  Finance  who  are  responsible  for  submitting  the  State 
budget to Parliament. The Inspector has a separate code in the State budget. She is required to 
provide justification for her spending plans to the Ministry of Finance who have the power to 
amend them. If the Ministry of Finance do not agree with the Inspector’s plans, the Inspector 
31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
has  the  power  to  go  directly  to  the  Parliament.  The  budget  for  2015  is  2,225,000  GEL 
(approximately €950,000), a significant increa se over 2014 when it was 600,000 GEL. There 
are currently 26 staff in post, and an approved complement of 40. The additional 14 staff are 
currently being recruited.  

(cid:190)  Conduct  training  programmes  (including  on  anti-corruption)  and  raise 
awareness  on  data  protection,  including  establishment  of  guidelines  and  ethical 
codes for officials and authorities concerned; 

The  Inspector  carried  out  60  training  activities  across  the  public  and  private  sectors  and 
trained over 2200 people, the vast majority of which came from the public sector.  As well as 
conducting  training  programmes  on  her  own  account,  she  co-operated  with  the  training 
branches  of  other  public  sector  organisations.  In  particular,  she  has  co-operated  with  the 
training branches of the Ministries of Justice, Internal Affairs,  Finance and  Foreign Affairs.  
In addition she trained staff of the Public Service Development Agency, the administration of 
the  President  and  the  office  of  the  Chief  Prosecutor.  For  the  future,  training  is  planned  for 
local self-government authorities, more private organisations, and media representatives.   

The  provision  of  information  to  the  public  about  data  protection  is  one  of  the  four  main 
statutory  tasks  of  the  Inspector.  However,  the  extent  of  awareness  of  data  protection  is  still 
low. Only a small number of private sector data controllers have submitted notifications to the 
Inspector, although the number of public sector organisations notifying is much higher. The 
statistics  for  approaches  made  to  the  Inspector  for  information  and  advice  show  that  438 
involved the private sector, 547 the public sector, and 139 citizens. The last of these figures is 
the best available indicator of awareness of data protection among ordinary individuals. In a 
country  with  a  population  of  about  4.5  million  people,  where  data  protection  law  has  only 
relatively recently been introduced, a considerably greater number of requests for information 
should have been recorded were knowledge of the issue to be widespread among the public. 

As  concerns  guidelines  and  ethical  codes,  one  of  the  Inspector’s  tasks  is  to  produce  written 
guidelines  for  data  controllers.    Those  produced  so  far  cover:  Personal  Data  Protection  in 
Labour  Relations;  Data  Processing  for  Direct  Marketing  Purposes;  and  Video  Surveillance 
Systems.    Other  guidelines  that  the  Inspector  are  currently  working  on  include:  Data 
Protection  and  On-line  Privacy;    Protection  of  Medical  Data;    Data  processing  in  the 
Insurance Sector; and a Media Guide on Data Protection.   

2.4. Block 4: External Relations and Fundamental Rights  

2.4.1.  Freedom of movement within Georgia 

(cid:190)  Ensuring that freedom of movement within Georgia of Georgian citizens, legally 
staying foreigners and stateless persons is not subject to unjustified restrictions, 
including  measures  of  a  discriminatory  nature,  based  on  any  ground  such  as 
gender,  race,  colour,  ethnic  or  social  origin,  genetic  features,  health  status 
(including HIV/AIDS), language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, 
membership  of  a  national  minority,  property,  birth,  disability,  age  or  sexual 
orientation; 

The  Organic  Law  on  Citizenship  of  Georgia  and  the  Law  on  Legal  Status  of  Aliens  and 
Stateless Persons accompanied by relevant by-laws lay down the legal framework regulating 
32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  citizenship  and  residence  issues.  The  new  legal  framework  which  introduced  major 
changes  to  the  status  of  aliens  and  stateless  persons  was  adopted  in  2014.  Therefore,  the 
implementation practice is still developing and authorities have to deal with some challenges 
arising  during  this  process.  The  efforts  need  to  be  stepped  up  to  increase  knowledge  of 
individuals  concerned  about  their  rights  and  obligations  under  the  new  legislation  in  a 
language  that  they  understand.  Cooperation  with  local  governments  and  local  communities, 
paying particular attention to persons belonging to national minorities, could be very useful. 
There  is  a  vivid  civil  society  in  Georgia  who  could  also  be  invited  to  be  engaged  in 
information sharing. 

Georgia adopted the Organic Law on Citizenship on 30 April 2014 which entered into force 
on 11 June 2014. The Decree on Consideration and Decision-Making on Matters of Georgian 
Citizenship  specifies  the  issues  of  granting  and  terminating  Georgian  citizenship  and 
determines the procedures of considering and deciding on awarding or terminating Georgian 
citizenship.  The  new  law  on  citizenship  paid  particular  attention  in  bringing  the  law  in  line 
with the principles established by UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. 

Georgia,  since  its  restauration  of  statehood  in  1991,  has  always  followed  the  principle  of 
single  citizenship  while  not  foreseeing  the  possibility  of  dual  or  multiple  citizenships. 
Georgian  citizen  may  not  concurrently  be  a  citizen  of  another  country,  except  if  he/she  has 
been granted Georgian citizenship by way of exception by the President. The President may 
grant  Georgian  citizenship  to  an  alien  who  has  made  a  contribution  of  exceptional  merit  to 
Georgia. The President may also grant Georgian citizenship by way of exception to an alien 
based on state interests (Article 17). A Georgian citizen shall lose Georgian citizenship inter 
alia if he/she acquires foreign citizenship (Article 21). 

Georgian  citizenship  may  be  terminated  by  an  applicant  seeking  the  abandonment  of 
citizenship. A person shall lose citizenship if a person acquires citizenship of another state, in 
this  case  a  competent  Georgian  authorities  apply  to  the  PSDA  Agency  about  the  loss  of 
citizenship or if the agency learns about the presence of grounds for the loss of citizenship, it 
shall  consider  the  issue  and  submit  its  conclusion  to  the  President  who  will  make  the  final 
decision.  It  has  to  be  stressed  that  nobody  can  be  deprived  of  Georgian  citizenship.  A 
conclusion  of  the  Agency  on  matters  of  Georgian  citizenship  can  be  appealed  in  court,  a 
decision of the President, except of a negative decision on granting Georgian citizenship, is 
also open to appeal. 

Law on Legal Status of Aliens and Stateless persons entered into force on 1 September 2014 
and  all  necessary  by-laws  have  been  adopted.  The  law  regulates  previously  very  liberal 
approach to residence and visa regime. Previously citizens could stay in Georgia for a period 
of 360 days during one year. According to the new law a foreigner who stays in Georgia for 
more than 90 days within 180 days has to apply for a residence permit. This is a considerable 
change in comparison with the previous regulation as before there was no need for a residence 
permit. 

A particular issue has arisen in the application of the new "Law on Legal Status of Aliens and 
Stateless persons" with residence permits and citizenship for holders of two or more passports 
in  the  compact  populated  minority  regions.  There  has  been  a  practice  in  some  regions  of 
Georgia that individuals acquire the nationality of another state in order to seek better work 
possibilities in neighbouring countries. It was explained to the experts that due to economic 
reasons  men  as  heads  of  household  have  been  entering  into  seasonal  or  temporary  jobs  in 
33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
neighbouring countries to support their families and while working abroad they have acquired 
the nationality of  another  country: Armenian, Azerbaijani, Russian, also Turkish in order to 
facilitate  travelling  abroad.  There  are  economic  reasons  behind  this  choice  as  the 
unemployment rate in some regions of Georgia is high. Georgian law does not allow persons, 
who voluntarily acquire another nationality, to retain their previous nationality and they will, 
in  an  automatic  process,  lose  Georgian  nationality.  The  authorities  have  to  initiate  the 
proceedings  of  losing  citizenship  in  respect  of  individuals  of  dual  citizenship  when  they 
become aware of this fact. 

There is no official data available about the number of foreign citizens living permanently in 
Georgia  who  possess  double  citizenship  and  who  according  to  the  law  have  no  right  to 
Georgian  nationality.  Different  estimates  of  those  affected  have  been  presented  by  the 
members  of  the  civil  society  ranging  from  2,000-6,000  foreign  citizens.  There  have  been 
cases where the process of loss of citizenship has been initiated but the numbers are not very 
considerable. It was confirmed by the authorities that about 350 Armenian citizens have lost 
Georgian citizenship on the ground of prohibition of dual citizenship. Individuals possessing 
double nationality and two passports in violation of the law are not willing to give information 
about their status knowing that Georgian authorities have to initiate an automatic process of 
deprivation of Georgian citizenship. The authorities are not pro-actively inquiring how many 
passports a person has. The countries of citizenship give information to Georgian authorities 
but mainly information is gained on border crossings.  

This  is  a  right  of  an  individual  to  choose  a  citizenship  of  a  foreign  country  but  as  non-
recognition  of  multiple  nationality  has  been  a  long  standing  practice  in  Georgia,  everyone 
living  in  Georgia  should  have  been  aware  of  the  non-recognition  of  multiple  nationality  in 
Georgian  law  and  about  a  possibility  of  loss  of  Georgian  nationality  in  this  case  and  this 
cannot come as a surprise.  

The civil society expressed concern that the new immigration policy is too cumbersome and it 
is  too  complicated  to  apply  for  a  residence  permit  in  Georgia,  maintaining  also  that  it  un-
proportionally  influences  the  rights  of  persons  belonging  to  the  minorities  of  Russia, 
Azerbaijan and Armenia. Although Georgia previously had a more lenient system for aliens 
living in Georgia, the legislative changes introduced give foreign citizens living in Georgia a 
possibility  to  regularise  their  stay  in  Georgia.  Taking  into  account  that  these  persons  have 
voluntarily acquired a nationality of a foreign country and that they can apply for a residence 
permit, it is reasonable to expect that they should legalise their stay in Georgia and this legal 
duty cannot be considered too cumbersome. Extension of deadlines in the law gives now more 
time  to  initiate  relevant  proceedings,  showing  flexible  attitude  from  authorities  to  tackle 
unexpected shortcomings of needed reforms and legislation.  

On  24  February  2015,  the  law  was  amended  and  the  grace  period  to  apply  for  a  residence 
permit  was  extended  until  1  July  2015.  Aliens  who  have  crossed  the  state  border  before  1 
September  2014  have  now    until  1  July  2015  the  possibility  to  apply  directly  for  a  6  year 
residence permit in Georgia and there is no need to acquire a Georgian visa and apply for a 
residence permit in a diplomatic representation abroad. After this deadline immigration visa 
should be obtained from a diplomatic representation abroad. 

The timeline extension was a welcome development and shows the willingness of Georgian 
authorities to guarantee to all those concerned a possibility to regularise their stay in Georgia. 
The  prolongation  of  the  grace  period  was  a  necessary  step  as  during  the  meetings  with  the 
34 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
representatives  of  civil  society  claimed  that  those  concerned  are  not  well  aware  how  to 
regularise their stay in Georgia.  

The  question  of  refusal  of  granting  a  residence  permit,  in  particular  on  the  grounds  of  state 
security, was raised by representatives of the civil society. Authorities have stressed that all 
cases will be dealt with on a case-by case basis and all aspects of the case including family 
unity will be taken into account. There is also a possibility to appeal against a refusal to grant 
a residence permit.  A complaint against an administrative act of refusal can be presented in 
the administrative court and the court has to review the case, the decision of the first instance 
court is open to further appeal in the second and third instance courts. There is a possibility to 
get legal aid in addition to criminal cases also in civil and administrative cases. 

The PSDA carried out a comprehensive information campaign: information about legislative 
changes  was  provided  to  the  Diplomatic  Corps  accredited  in  Georgia,  international 
organisations  and  foreign  chambers  of  commerce.  Relevant  information  is  also  available  on 
the websites of PSDA and MoI in Georgian and in English. Further steps have been taken by 
the  authorities  to  inform  persons  belonging  to  national  minorities  and  currently  information 
material  is  being  translated  into  Russian  as  being  a  language  widely  understood  by  persons 
belonging  to  national  minorities.  There  have  also  been  meetings  held  to  discuss  practical 
problems  of  implementation  of  legislation  where  representatives  of  state  authorities,  local 
government and local communities have participated.  

Statistics  show  considerable  reductions  of  statelessness  in  recent  years:  2011  (1.958),  2012 
(1.690),  2013  (783)  2014  (770).  Total  number  of  stateless  persons  with  determined  status 
under new law is currently 157. 

The  authorities  continue  to  improve  their  policies  as  regards  stateless  persons.  There  are 
already specific plans for 2015: 1) Developing an action plan on reduction of statelessness; 2) 
Gap  analysis  on  the  situation  of  statelessness  in  Georgia;  3)  Developing  Special  Operations 
Procedures on citizenship and statelessness issues. 

2.4.2.  Conditions and procedures for the issuance of travel and identity documents 

(cid:190)  Full  and  effective  access  to  travel  and  identity  documents  for  all  Georgian 
citizens  including  women,  children,  people  with  disabilities,  internally  displaced 
persons, people belonging to minorities and other vulnerable groups; 

Full and effective access to travel and identity documents for all Georgian citizens including 
women,  children,  people  with  disabilities,  internally  displaced  persons,  people  belonging  to 
minorities and other vulnerable groups is in place in Georgia. 

2.4.3.  Citizens’ rights including protection of minorities 

(cid:190)  Effective  implementation  of  legislation  and  policies  on  anti-discrimination, 
including  by  ensuring  effective  legal  aid  and  the  independence  of  the  judiciary; 
implementation of relevant UN and Council of Europe instruments; 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Effective  implementation  of  legislation  and  policies  on  anti-discrimination,  including  by 
ensuring effective legal aid and the independence of the judiciary; implementation of relevant 
UN and Council of Europe instruments; 

The  Anti-discrimination  law  provides  the  necessary  legislative  bases  to  ensure  the 
implementation  of  the  relevant  benchmark;  still,  some  of  its  provisions  related  to  "public 
morals  and  state  interest"  should  be  subject  to  close  monitoring  (e.g.  matters  of  compelling 
state interest.)  

According  to  Article  11  of  the  Anti-Discrimination  law:1.  An  organization,  institution,  or 
association, engaged in the protection of persons from discrimination, may apply to the Public 
Defender of Georgia with the request to be permitted as a third party in the trial provided for 
by this Law. 2. The Public Defender of Georgia may satisfy a request provided for by the first 
paragraph of this article only with consent of the person who considers himself/herself to be a 
victim  of  discrimination.  Article  11  is  applicable  only  in  the  proceeding  before  the  Public 
Defender  and  not  for  the  Court  procedures.  Anti-discrimination  legislation  does  not  include 
any  provisions  about  third  party  participation  in  the  Court  procedures.   The  participation  of 
the  third  party  in  the  Court  is  regulated  by  the  general  provisions  of  the  Civil  and 
Administrative  procedures  codes,  which  clarify  that  the  third  party  can  be  a  person  or 
organization whose rights and/or obligations can be influenced by the Court procedure.  

The  Law  of  Georgia  on  Elimination  of  all  Forms  of  Discrimination  entered  into  force  on  7 
May  2014.  This  is  an  important  and  positive  step  taken  by  Georgia  to  create  a  legal 
framework  to  strengthen  principles  of  equality  and  non-discrimination  and  giving  better 
protection  to  individuals.  First  steps  taken  in  its  implementation  are  encouraging  and 
demonstrate the determination of the authorities to stay on course and continue work towards 
a  tolerant  society.  According  to  the  law  two  mechanisms  are  available  to  victims  of 
discrimination: 1) the Public Defender of Georgia; 2) the Court. 

On August 22, 2014 by the Decree #140 of the Public Defender of Georgia, amendments were 
introduced to the Statute of the Office of Public Defender of Georgia establishing the Equality 
Department, which is tasked to carry out the responsibilities assigned by the Law of Georgia 
on  Elimination  of  all  Forms  of  Discrimination.  The  functions  of  the  Department  are  the 
following: 

•  Examination  of  applications  on  alleged  discrimination  submitted  to  the  Office  of 
Public Defender and preparation of relevant conclusions/recommendations/ proposals; 

•  Drafting constitutional complaints under its competences; 
•  Preparation of relevant parts of the Ombudsman's report; 
•  Monitoring the implementation of the recommendations made by the Ombudsman on 

issues within its competence; 

•  Planning and implementing educational activities on issues of equality; 
•  Analysis of laws/draft laws and preparation of recommendations/proposals. 

Activities of the Department are carried out by the Head of the Department, the Deputy Head 
of  the  Department  and  4  Chief  Specialists.  In  accordance  with  the  needs  of  the  Office,  the 
Public  Defender  of  Georgia  plans  to  gradually  recruit  17  additional  employees.  The  Public 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
Defender  employs  two  legal  advisers/consultants,  who  provide  legal  consultations  to 
individuals and assists them in completing the application forms. According to the authorities 
financing  of  the  Equality  Departments  of  the  Public  Defender’s  Office  is  sufficient  (2014  – 
approximately  €158,291  and  for  2015  €240.000  allocated )  to  fulfil  all  the  tasks  vested  in  it 
and currently there is no need for additional state financial resources. For the future, financing 
should  be  sustainable  and  financing  of  non-discrimination  activities  may  deserve  separate 
financing in future action plans which are already under consideration, including donors /EU 
funding.   

As  of  February  2015,  the  Office  of  Public  Defender  of  Georgia  has  reviewed  61  cases:  58 
complaints of alleged discrimination and 3 cases initiated by the Public Defender: 1) access to 
the  Sport  palace  for  disabled  persons;  2)  Publication  of  discriminatory  vacancies  based  on 
sex; 3) Publication of discriminatory vacancies based on age. 62% of the cases reviewed by 
the  Public  Defender  concerned  alleged  discrimination  in  the  public  sector  and  38%  in  the 
private  sector.    When  reviewing  the  discrimination  case,  the  Public  Defender  may  take  the 
following decisions: 1) Friendly settlements with the right to invite the parties in conflict and 
monitor fairness of the friendly settlement. 2) Recommendations when parties fail to reach an 
agreement and there is sufficient evidence of discrimination; 3) General proposals to prevent 
and combat discrimination.  

The  Public  Defender  of  Georgia  is  also  authorised  to  develop  opinions  on  the  necessary 
legislative amendments in order to ensure the compliance of national legislation with the anti-
discrimination  law.  The  Public  Defender  of  Georgia  has  prepared  a  legislative  proposal 
regarding  the  amendments  into  the  following  legal  acts:  Organic  Law  of  Georgia  -  Labour 
Code; Civil Procedure Code of Georgia; Law of Georgia on Public Service. These proposals 
are currently pending in the legislative proceedings and deserve due deliberation. 

MoI  tasked  analytical  department  to  keep  statistics  on  anti-discrimination  cases  and  made 
anti-discrimination  part  of  the  basic  curricula  for  the  police.  MFA  is  organizing  targeted 
trainings for improving state reporting obligations under the UN treaty based bodies.  

Judges  face  a  challenge  of  frequent  changes  of  the  law  but  authorities  reassured  that  all 
judges,  administrative,  criminal,  civil  judges  get  adequate  levels  of  training.  The  High 
Council of Justice plans to elaborate curriculum and provide trainings on anti-discrimination 
with an emphasis on new anti-discrimination law and relevant international legal instruments. 
Forming  a  national  case-law  based  on  international  standards  is  an  important  part  of 
successful implementation of anti-discrimination law and qualification of judges is of crucial 
importance, as judges are the ones to interpret and apply the law, involvement of the case-law 
can lead to reviewing the law in the future, if necessary.  At the moment there is not much 
anti-discrimination case-law and it is mainly in the developing stage, which is to be expected 
in the first years following the introduction of the legal framework. The Article 53(31) of the 
Criminal  Code  of  Georgia  concerns  the  issue  of  aggravating  the  penalties  for  crimes 
committed  with  discriminatory  motives,  this  provision  has  been  used  very  rarely  (only  two 
cases) by Public Prosecutor’s Office or Georgian Courts. 

Protection of Minorities 

The  population  of  Georgia  includes  an  important  component  of  ethnic  minorities  of  around 
16%  of  the  total  population  of  the  country  (based  on  2002  census).  Georgia  ratified  the 
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 2005. Although a specific 
37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
law on national or ethnic minorities does not exist in Georgia, the Constitution of Georgia and 
other pieces of legislation contain provisions on equality and non-discrimination in regards to 
ethnic minorities. Article 38.1 of the Constitution consecrates the rights of citizens to develop 
freely,  without  any  discrimination  and  interference,  their  culture  and  to  use  their  mother 
tongue  in  private  and  in  public.  Art.  38.2  disposes  however  that  the  exercise  of  “minority 
rights”  shall  not  oppose  the  sovereignty,  state  structure,  territorial  integrity  and  political 
independence of Georgia. In addition, specific protection and provisions are contained in the 
Law  on  the  Elimination  of  All  Forms  of  Discrimination  of  2014  and  the  recently  adopted 
Human Rights Strategy and Action Plan. 

The State policy on ethnic minorities is coordinated by the State Minister’s Office of Georgia 
for  Reconciliation  and  Civic  Equality,  which  also  coordinates  a  State  Inter-agency 
Commission overseeing implementation. The Council of Ethnic Minorities comprised of non-
governmental organisations at the Office of the Public Defender and the Human Rights and 
Civil Integration Committee of the Parliament of Georgia constitute other important actors for 
consultation and monitoring of the State policy for ethnic minorities. In addition, the President 
and the Prime Minister have special Advisors on Ethnic Minorities. 

In  May  2009  the  Government  of  Georgia  adopted  the  key  document  of  the  State  policy  in 
relation to national minorities: the “National Concept for Tolerance and Civil Integration” and 
its related five-year Action Plan (2009-2014). The concept covers six strategic directions as 
envisaged  under  the  action  plan,  namely:  the  rule  of  law;  education  and  the  state  language; 
media  and  access  to  information;  political  integration  and  civic  participation;  social  and 
regional integration and culture and preservation of identity. The Office of the State Minister 
with  cooperation  of  independent  experts  prepared  the  Assessment  Document  on  the 
Implementation of the National Concept for Tolerance and Civic Integration and Action Plan 
for  2009-2014,  which  reviews  and  analyses  the  policies  and  programs  implemented.  The 
Assessment document lists the achievements and concentrates on the remaining problems and 
formed  the  basis  for  establishing  new  priorities  of  a  new  strategy  and  action  plan.  It  was 
prepared  in  open  consultation  with  relevant  stakeholders  (Council  of  National  Minorities, 
NGOs, and local minority groups) and received expert support from the Office of OSCE High 
Commissioner  on  National  Minorities.  Currently  the  new  strategy  and  action  plan  are  in  an 
advanced stage of elaboration.  

The  general  education  system  guarantees  education  in  minority  languages,  and  14%  of  the 
public schools/sectors have Armenian, Azerbaijani or Russian as language of instruction. The 
four  main  directions  of  the  education  policy  for  integration  of  ethnic  minorities  are:  a) 
improving the knowledge of Georgian language; b) protecting minority languages; c) ensuring 
the right to receive quality general education in native language; d) fostering access to higher 
education.  In  the  area  of  media,  the  Public  Broadcaster  of  Georgia  airs  a  five-minute  daily 
news programme in five languages and a weekly 45 minutes-programme dedicated to ethnic 
minorities-related  TV  reports.  There  are  also  radio  programmes  in  six  minority  languages. 
The  Ministry  of  Culture  finances  newspapers 
in  Armenian,  Azeri  and  Russian. 
Representatives  of  the  national  minorities  have  expressed  some  concerns  in  relation  to 
stereotyped  images  or  xenophobic  statements  in  mainstream  media  coverage  of  minority 
related issues.  

Concerns were also expressed in relation to occasional statements of intolerant character by 
senior public officials contrary to the goals of the state policy.  Georgia also continues to face 
the challenge of integration of national minorities in state and local government institutions. 
38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Even in the local councils of municipalities where minorities constitute a clear majority they 
appear to be often underrepresented. Insufficient knowledge of the State language was raised 
by the interlocutors as one of the main reason for this phenomenon. All these challenges are 
tackled  as  priorities  under  the  new  Tolerance  concept.    As  a  positive  development  a  Draft 
Law  on  State  Language  was  drafted  in  cooperation  with  OSCE  Commissioner  on  National 
Minorities’. The draft law includes notion of the “language of national minorities” defined as 
a non-state language which is traditionally used by the citizens of Georgia living compactly in 
certain  territory  of  Georgia,  and  guarantees  for  the  use  of  minority  languages  in  the 
“municipalities densely populated by national minorities”.  

During  the  last  five  years  since  the  adoption  of  the  Concept  and  Action  Plan,  significant 
progress has been made. Preparation of new Tolerance Concept is under way and is based on 
lessons learned in the period of 2009-2014. Still work is needed to improve civic integration 
of  the  ethnic  minorities,  who  remain  underrepresented  locally  and  at  the  country  level. 
Important  balancing  act  needed  to  increase  minority  integration,  while  preserving  linguistic 
and cultural rights with more emphasis on early education and responding to greater demand 
to learn Georgian language.  Among positive elements mentioned by the ethnic minorities are 
improved  infrastructures,  agricultural  vouchers,  and  University  enrolment  programme  1+4. 
There is also  demand  to learn more about the association with the EU and its benefits. The 
government confirmed its intention to concentrate more efforts in the regions. 

Georgia  remains  committed  to  signing  and  ratifying  the  European  Charter  for  Regional  and 
Minority Languages and provisions to create necessary conditions will be included in the new 
Tolerance  Concept  and  AP.  This  action  will  be  reinforced  by  the  two-year  project  in 
cooperation with the Council of Europe “Civic Integration of National Minorities in Georgia 
and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages” for the period 2015-2017. 

(cid:190)  Effective  implementation  of  the  National  Human  Rights  Strategy  and  Action 
Plan  measures  to  fight  against  discrimination  (including  allocation  of  adequate 
human  and  financial  resources);  general  awareness  raising  campaigns  against 
racism,  xenophobia,  and  other  forms  of  discrimination;  strengthening  the 
capacities  of  responsible  bodies  for  anti-discrimination  policy  and  combating 
racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination; 

Georgia  has  in  2014  adopted  the  National  Strategy  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  in 
Georgia 2014-2020 accompanied with the national Action Plan (AP) for the years 2014-2016. 
The Strategy and the Action Plan identify human rights priorities and streamline the activities 
of various government agencies, while also making a positive contribution to the coordination 
of donor support which, in turn, should increase the effectiveness of the government’s work in 
the  area  of  protection  of  the  human  rights.  The  Strategy  aims  to  develop  a  systematic 
approach  ensuring  the  implementation  of  obligations  stemming  from  human  rights  in 
everyday  life.  In  order  to  monitor  implementation  of  the  AP  an  inter-agency  coordination 
mechanism  Human  Rights  Council  (HRC)  under  the  Government  was  set  up.  The  HRC  is 
chaired  by  the  Prime  Minister.  The  members  of  the  HRC  are  the  deputy  ministers,  several 
NGOs  and  all  the  international  organisations  present  in  Georgia.  So  far  there  have  been  3 
meetings  of  the  Human  Rights  Council  to  discuss  the  implementation  of  the  action  plan.  A 
Human  Rights  Council  Secretariat  is  assisting  the  HCR  in  its  work.  In  addition  to  the  HR 
Strategy and AP, the Secretariat now also coordinates the UN Convention on Disability and is 
preparing  a  Strategy  on  Violence  Prevention.    The  HRC  has  created  9  different  working 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
groups meeting monthly on the level of deputy ministers and heads of department to monitor 
implementation of all 23 chapters of the AP.  

The  Secretariat,  in  cooperation  with  other  ministries,  government  agencies  and  NGO’s,  has 
drafted a first Progress report on the implementation of the AP over the last 6 months. The 
Progress  report  was  distributed  for  comments  to  relevant  stakeholders  in  the  beginning  of 
January 2015, the discussions of the report in the working groups started in February and the 
draft  will  be  presented  to  the  HRC  for  approval  in  March.  The  HRC  has  to  approve  the 
progress  report  and  final  version  will  be  presented  to  parliament.  The  objectives  of  the  AP 
foreseen  specifically  for  2014  were  all  achieved.  Specifically  progress  has  been  registered 
among  others  in  the  penitentiary  reform,  Juvenile  Justice  Code  was  prepared  and  important 
steps  were  taken  to  fight  against  challenges  of  domestic  violence.    The  AP  is  a  living 
document  that  can  be  amended  to  reflect  needs  and  new  challenges.  The  work  has  already 
started  on  a  new  Action  Plan  for  the  period  2016-2017.  It  will  build  on  experience  of  the 
implementation  of  the  previous  one  and  will  cover  new  areas  such  as  for  example:  election 
rights, right to quality education, health care.  As the current HR AP did not contain separate 
budget  lines  it  is  planned  to  include  them  into  the  new  AP  as  well  as  to  where  possible 
introduce more concrete deadlines. The Secretariat also wants to raise public awareness and 
engage in the regions and introduce the Government’s human rights policy and Action Plan to 
national  minorities.  Future  funding  by  donors,  including  the  EU,  will  enhance  the 
implementation of the HR AP.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 

ASSESSMENT OF MIGRATORY AND SECURITY IMPACTS 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Background 

According  to  the  VLAP  methodology,  before  moving  to  second  phase,  the  Commission 
committed to provide an assessment of possible migratory and security impacts of future visa 
liberalisation  for  Georgian  citizens  travelling  to  the  EU.  Such  an  extensive  assessment  was 
presented with the previous VLAP CSWD11.  

1.2. Methodology 

This document updates the first Assessment of Impact that was published in 2014. This 
assessment has been primarily based on the inputs provided by the European Agency for the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the 
European  Union (FRONTEX); the European Union’s law enforcement  agency EUROPOL); 
the European Asylum Support Office (EASO); the European University Institute – Migration 
Policy  Centre;  Eurostat  data.  The  present  document  also  relies  on  a  combination  of  official 
Georgian or international organisation sources. 

Based on the contributions received, the present update to the assessment aims to identify 
the main phenomena and key trends in the areas of migration, mobility and security in 
relation to Georgia and the possible impact of a visa-free regime for the Schengen area.   

This  update  to  the  assessment  reflects  the  state  of  play  as  of  March  2015  and  therefore 
represents a snapshot of the situation at the current state of implementation of the VLAP. It is 
expected  to  change  and  improve,  following  the  effective  implementation  of  the  VLAP. 
However, this update to the assessment does not constitute a benchmark of the VLAP.  

2. ASSESSMENT OF MIGRATORY IMPACTS 

2.1. Regular and irregular migration: trends and possible impacts of a visa-free travel 

2.1.1. General overview 

The  migration  of  Georgians  abroad  is  mostly  a  spontaneous  circular  migration  to 
neighbouring  countries.  Unemployment  and  lack  of  economic  opportunities  are  major 
determinants  of  labour  migration  from  Georgia,  keeping  in  mind  that  in  2013  and  2014  the 
unemployment rate in the country was around 15%12.  

Even if the Russian Federation remains for Georgians the most popular destination for labour 
migration,  economic  opportunities  and  links  with  the  EU  result  in  migratory  movements 

11 SWD(2014) 334 final. 
12  National  Statistics  Office  of  Georgia  and  European  Training  Foundation  "Migration  and  skills  in  Armenia, 
Georgia and Morocco" 2013 report with reference to The Georgia's National Statistics office. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
between  Georgia  and  its  EU  member  states.  Germany,  Italy,  Greece  and  Poland  are 
attractive destinations for Georgian citizen migration but they also consider several other 
Member  States  such  as  Spain,  France  or  UK  as  attractive  destinations  for  labour  migration. 
Therefore  Georgians  are  widespread  across  European  countries.  Other  common 
destinations outside EU include the United States and Turkey.  

According  to  the  International  Organisation  for  Migration,  labour  migrants  from  Georgia 
represent 4.4% of the country population and almost 47% of them are male in 2013. Data on 
migration estimates that around 7% and 8% of Georgians have experienced migration. Studies 
show  that  Georgian  families  have  at  least  one  member  living  and  working  in  a  foreign 
country.13 Men are mainly working in manual labour industries (construction, agriculture) and 
women tend to be domestic or seasonal agricultural workers.  

The number of labour migrants from Georgia abroad is estimated at around 140.000 people.14  

2.1.2 Regular migration facts 

The first table below from Eurostat shows all valid permits residents with 66.536 Georgians 
officially are residing in the Schengen area in 2013 (66.035 Georgians citizens are residing in 
EU  Member  States).  Most  of  them  live  in  Greece  (16392),  Italy  (13051)  and  Germany 
(10741), followed by Spain (8907) and France (5027).   

The data also shows an increase of average 5000 permits per year between 2011-2013 for the 
total EU countries, which correspond to a growing interest for EU.  

2013 

2012 

2011 

Table 1: All valid permits by reason, length of validity and citizenship on 31 December 
of each year (Georgians), 2011-2013 
Member State or Associated State 
European Union (28 countries) 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 

66,035 
1,813 
75 
773 
141 
10,741 
275 
312 
16,392 
8,907 
5,027 
7 
13,051 
954 
289 
325 
15 

57,565
2,021
67
836
136
10,143
244
367
16,523
7,601
3,945

60,188
1,944
79
724
135
10,567
252
364
15,532
8,389
4,468

9,467
1,248 : 
243
243
11

251
308
15

11,042

: 

: 

13 The Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, 'Labour migration from Georgia and bilateral 
migration agreements: Needs and Prospects', 2009. 
14 Migration Policy Centre's input to the Assessment of Impacts, July 2014. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Iceland 
Norway 
Switzerland 
Source: Eurostat data last updated 24.02.15, extracted on 08.04.2015 

226
48
680
1,352
924
951
49
14
65
95
605
1,109

247
47
733
1,073
585
1,042
36
11
73
81
542

84
397

6
72

6 : 

: 

: 

170 
64 
483 
1,560 
1,320 
902 
79 
13 
64 
42 
1,221 
1,020 

91 
410 

When  compared  to  the  other  neighbouring  countries  in  Caucasus  better  working  conditions 
are  the  main  factors  for  Georgians  going  to  the  EU.  Furthermore,  with  18%  of  the 
population aged under 15 in 201315 Georgia will have to provide economic opportunities 
in the near future to avoid large emigration flows. Higher wages and diaspora are probably 
important factors for choosing preferred Members States.  

As the data in Table 2 suggest, the number of Georgian citizens getting valid permits in the 
EU varies from 6829 to 11596 (maximum registered in 2010) in the recent years with a total 
of 9877 residence permits issued in 2013.  Eurostat Data for 2014 is not yet available. Sudden 
increases  in  (2009/2010  and  2013)  are  presumably  due  to  political  developments  (2008 
military conflict and 2012 political power shift). 

When it comes to regular migration to the EU in 2013, the most residence permits were issued 
in Italy (2 573), Germany (1 284), and Poland (1 211), followed by Spain, France and Greece 
(around 850 permits each).  

2009 

2008 

Table 2: First permits by reason, length of validity and citizenship (Georgia), 2008-2013 
2013 
Member State or Associated State 
8,508  9,877
European Union (28 countries) 
98
Belgium 
13
Bulgaria 
161
Czech Republic 
17
Denmark 
1,243  1,284
Germany 
64
Estonia 
57
Ireland 

2010 
11,596
339
22
176
26
799
83
45

7,617 
217 
22 
95 
24 
806 
66 
56 

9,514
395
23
167
27
806
65
79

6,829
221
23
203
25
712
41
67

148 
26 
130 
9 

58 
49 

2011 

2012 

15  IOM  data:  http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/where-we-work/europa/south-eastern-europe-eastern-
eur/georgia.html. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

757
872
575

697
922
602

630
984
551

1,091
312
133
94

Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Iceland 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 
: 
Switzerland 
Source: Eurostat data last updated 24.02.15, extracted on 30.03.2015 

3,590
243
59
72
6
68
22
156
352
147
111
28
4
21
14
150
688
0

5,898
187
72
34
1
59
8
112
384
241
107
13
7
20
8
156
595
0

96
14
164
145
139
190
14
2
19
19
88
852
0

22

12

22

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

569 
1,240 
600 

1,483 
184 
94 
45 
2 
56 
12 
85 
552 
537 
86 
9 
9 
24 
11 
163 
570 
0 

: 

29 

676 
992 
718 

809
901
857
1
1,952  2,573
137
133 
100
81 
95
122 
4
3 
109
50 
60
19 
142
93 
500 
341
640  1,211
58
67 
45
13 
3
6 
12
16 
17
19 
143
172 
565
573 
0
0 
1
34
84

42 
76 

It is also important to note the evolution of the issuing and refusal rates for the different types 
of visas.  

According to the DG HOME data based on Member State contributions, in terms of absolute 
numbers,  82.159  short  stay  visas  were  applied  for  by  Georgian  nationals  during  2013  and 
93.126  in  2014.  That  represents  a  13%  increase  which  in  turn  signals  a  greater  interest 
from Georgians to travel to the EU. The demand is also high regarding multiple entry visas 
with around 26.000 issuances per year.  

The  average  visa  refusal  rate  for  short  stay  visa  applications  lodged  by  Georgian  citizens 
dropped  slightly  from  11.5%  in  2013  to  11.2%  in  2014,  whereas  the  multiple  entry  visa 
issuing rate was 28.2% in 2014. Countries that received the most applications in 2014 were 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Czech Republic and Greece.   

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: Applications for short-term and Multiple entry visa Schengen in Georgia, 2013-
2014 (Countries with Georgian consulate) 

Schengen State

C visas 
applied for 
2013

C visas 
issued 
2013

MEVs 
issued 
2013

MEVs 
issuing 
rate 2013

C visas not 
issued 
2013

C visa 
refusal 
rate 2013

C visas 
applied for 
2014

C visas 
issued 
2014

MEVs 
issued 
2014

MEVs 
issuing 
rate 2014

C visas not 
issued 
2014

C visa 
refusal 
rate 2014

1,123
104
942
943

14.3%
Czech Republic
6.3%
Estonia
France
12.3%
Germany
5.6%
Greece
0.0%
Italy
13.5%
6.2%
Latvia
Lithuania
19.8%
Netherlands
20.7%
4.5%
Poland
6.0%
Switzerland
11.2%
Total
Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs. 

7.5%
968
34.6%            421 
22.8%            891 
18.7%
2,024
9.7%            850 
1,271
95.8%
36.4%
243
41.9%         1,192 
1,254
38.2%
231
33.5%
140
21.8%
9,485
31.6%

6,709
1,535
6,710
15,795
8,672
12,886
3,871
3,726
13,924
3,715
3,424
80,967

7,832
1,651
7,661
16,739
10,048
14,906
4,127
4,741
17,888
3,890
3,643
93,126

7,791
2,039
7,070
15,592
5,294
12,185
2,589
4,172
9,032
2,922
4,016
72,702

587
705
1,611
2,918
511
11,673
943
1,748
3,450
979
877
26,002

8,760
2,461
7,963
17,625
6,144
13,464
2,832
5,305
10,293
3,153
4,159
82,159

605
588
1,836
3,143
600
9,338
962
1,471
5,615
1,393
704
26,255

9.0%
38.3%
27.4%
19.9%
6.9%
72.5%
24.9%
39.5%
40.3%
37.5%
20.6%
28.2%

11.1%
17.1%
11.2%
11.5%
13.8%
9.4%
8.6%
22.5%
12.2%
7.3%
3.4%
11.5%

2,018
255
941
3,708
175
217
10,426

C visas 
applied for 
- change 13-
14
-13.9%
-24.7%
-5.1%
1.3%
63.8%
5.8%
49.5%
-10.7%
54.2%
27.1%
-14.7%
11.4%

C visas 
issued - 
change 13-
14
3.1%
-16.6%
14.0%
7.7%
17.4%
-20.0%
2.0%
-15.8%
62.8%
42.3%
-19.7%
1.0%  

2.1.3. Irregular migration trends 

Eurostat  database  table  below  shows  that  5215  Georgians  citizens  were  detected  to  be 
irregularly  present  in  the  MS  and  Schengen  associated  countries  in  2013  of  which  the 
highest number (1380 cases) was detected in Germany, followed by Greece, France, Sweden 
and  Italy.  Other  Eurostat  data  also  shows  that  around  3000  Georgians  who  were  found 
illegally in EU, returned to a third country in 2013.  

2013 

2012 

2011 

2010 

2009 

2008 

Table  4:  Third  country  nationals  found  to  be  illegally  present  (annual  data  for 
Georgians), 2008-2013  
Member State or Associated State 
European Union (28 countries) 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 

4,285 
90 
25 
70 
0 
585 
20 
45 
850 
355 
285 

5,340 
125 
15 
65 
0 
1,085 
45 
25 
795 
290 
390 

5,120
140
25
95
5
460
10
145
1,915
635
0

5,325
125
25
30
0
710
10
120
1,340
440
400

7,180
110
25
165
0
605
0
250
2,395
595
410

4,930
115
30
45
0
1,380
20
25
590
245
400
0
395
160
75
220

445 
295 
70 
265 

335 
325 
15 
130 

265
280
15
30

370
280
5
55

245
275
5
80

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
: 

Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Iceland 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 
Switzerland 
Source: Eurostat data last updated 15.10.14, extracted on 30.03.2015. 

15
0
95
490
20
120
0
5
230
10
0
125
0
0
5

0
30
0
140
895
255
40
20
0
130
20
345
135

0
30
0
280
450
75
40
20
0
85
55
270
105

0 : 
0
0 : 
0

: 

: 

0

0

5 
35 
0 
160 
345 
95 
45 
30 
0 
40 
65 
240 
90 

0 
10 
205 

5 
45 
10 

: 

: 

410 
210 
50 
10 
0 
65 
15 
505 
110 

0 
15 
200 

: 

: 

5
65
10

340
215
35
10
0
55
10
405
75

0
40
245

This  data  also  show  sudden  increases  (in  2009  and  2012/2013)  and  decreases  of  irregular 
flows,  presumably  due  to  political  developments  (2008  military  conflict  and  2012  political 
power shift)16. 

Belarus  has  no  visa  requirement  for  Georgian  citizens  and  regular  and  direct  flights 
exist between the two countries, making Belarus the main transit country for irregular 
migration to the EU.  

The  total  number  of  refusals  of  entry  by  Georgian  citizens  was  8210  cases  in  2013. 
Poland is the main entry point to the EU and it issues the majority of refusals to Georgian 
nationals (7250 refusals). Georgian nationals migrants use primarily land routes probably also 
because they are not able to travel by air without a visa to the EU. 

2013 

2012 

Table 5: Georgian citizens refused entry at the external borders 2012-2013 
Member State or Associated State 
European Union (28 countries) 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany  
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 

8,210
10
50
10
15
20
0
10
160
5
30

8,980
10
70
10
0
20
10
10
95
10
20

16 FRONTEX report on implications of the visa exemption for Georgia, July 2014. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
: 

Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Iceland 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 
Switzerland 
Source: Eurostat data last updated 25.11.14, extracted on 30.03.2015. 

20
60
0
320
110
0
10
0
60
0
7,250
0
25
0
5
0
0
25

35
10
215
115
0
10
0
60
0
8,245
0
10
5
0
5
0
20

0
0
0

5
0
5

: 

: 

After being refused entry, sometimes several times due to lack of visa, some of the migrants 
apply  for  asylum  while  others  try  to  cross  the  border  illegally  mostly  at  the  EU's  eastern 
borders, namely Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. Still, according to FRONTEX, the number of 
detections of irregular border-crossing has remained relatively low (with 328 cases in 2013) in 
comparison with the refusals.  

2.1.4. Visa free regime possible impacts 

Georgian  irregular  migrants  combine  the  abuse  of  legal  entry  and  irregular  border-
crossings  as  entry  methods  to  the  EU.  Therefore  a  visa-free  regime  could  lead  to  an 
increase of the irregular migration due to the increased ease of travel.  

A  visa-free  regime  would  help  Georgians  to  regularise  migration  status  and  their 
working  conditions,  and  would  foster  regular  temporary  and  circular  migration  but  in  the 
framework of a visa free regime, the number of Georgians who overstay the legal limits 
of their travel visa to the EU could increase significantly.  

However,  the  relatively  small  population  of  Georgians  would  likely  keep  the  flows 
relatively  small  in  comparison  with  larger  or  geographically  closer  neighbours  of  the 
EU.  Additionally,  there  is  no  direct  land-border  between  Georgia  and  direct  flights 
between Georgia and the EU are not numerous.  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2. Asylum: trends and possible impacts of a visa-free travel 

According to the  EASO and Eurostat data during the past 5 years, Georgia has consistently 
been  among  the  top  15  main  countries  of  origin  of  asylum  applicants  in  the  EU+17  and 
applications from Georgian citizens are widely distributed throughout Europe. 

According  to  Eurostat  statistics  the  number  of  Georgians  seeking  international  protection 
between  2008  and  2013  in  the  EU+  is  roughly  9000  applications  a  year.  However  it 
stabilised since 2013.   

The Table 6 below shows a total of Georgian asylum applicants  for  the EU 28 countries of 
8555  in  2014  (9065  with  Schengen  associated  countries)  with  the  highest  numbers  of 
applicants  registered  in  Germany  (3180),  followed  by  France  (1590),  Sweden  (805)  and 
Poland (720). This coincides with the most popular destination countries of Georgian labour 
migrants except for Italy.  

The highest number of Asylum applications recorded coincides with times of conflict or 
political changes in the country.  Based on EASO analysis and Eurostat statistical data, the 
highest peaks in asylum applicants from Georgia were registered during times of crisis, e.g. in 
2003, in 2008-2009 with 11.185 applicants and in 2012 with 10.830 applicants.  

This is also due to increased forced movement of people18 inside of Georgia which relates 
to an increased flow of citizens fleeing the conflict and moving or wishing to move to the 
EU countries. 

2008 
2009 
5,015 10,500
385
15
35
15
640
5
90
2,170
35
540

Table 6: Asylum applicants by citizenship (Georgia), 2008-2014   
Member State or Associated 
State 
European Union (28 countries) 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany  
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 

2010 
6,865
365
15
10
15
750
0
55
1,160
50
1,435
: 

275
5
40
25
285
0
180
2,240
60
460

65
120
15
10
0

80
40
0
250
5

85
75
0
75
0

: 

: 

2012 

2011 
7,060 10,830 
505 
5 
10 
75 
1,430 
35 
20 
895 
10 
2,680 
: 

400
5
15
15
525
5
15
1,120
10
1,740
: 

65 
10 
105 
310 
5 

30
15
175
230
15

2013 
9,115
370
5
15
65
2,485
10
15
535
10
2,695
0
105
0
145
120
20

2014 
8,555
430
0
20
105
3,180
5
20
350
20
1,590
0
90
10
175
115
10

17 In this document EU+ represents the 28 European union countries + Schengen associated countries – Iceland, 
Norway, Switzerland. 
18 Roughly 250.000 IDPs according to the World Bank. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
160
5
75
510
70
5
55
0
120
10
225

Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Iceland 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 
Switzerland 
Total 
Source: Eurostat data last updated 20.03.15, extracted on 25.03.2015. 

115
0
425
975
4,180
0
40
0
100
20
370
100
0
0
45
640
5,520 11,185

10 
0 
250 
300 
3,235 
5 
0 
0 
55 
30 
750 
30 
10 
0 
110 
725 
7,515 11,675 

70
0
610
370
1,085
5
10
5
65
55
290
85
0
0
85
640
7,595

20
0
235
260
1,735
5
25
0
65
70
280
45
5
0
50
400

5
0
20
480

: 

40
0
240
255
1,240
0
25
0
35
15
620
50
5
0
65
655
9,835

40
0
350
415
720
0
5
0
15
40
805
50
5
0
35
465
9,065

Although a number of factors can influence the choice of the destination country, the presence 
of an established Georgian diaspora or previous experience in the destination country due to 
work  or  study  are  significant  pull  factors.  Therefore  the  existence  of  Georgian  residents 
seems to explain the geographical distribution of Georgian applicants for asylum, except 
in the case of Italy which has not registered high numbers of applications for asylum. 

Data  shows  a  recognition  rate  accounting  for  total  5%  as  indicated  by  Eurostat  in  2014. 
340  positive  decisions  in  the  EU  up  to  20  March  2015  were  made  in  regard  of  the  6145 
applications  of  2014  (and  waiting  for  other  pending  cases  decisions).  The  main  positive 
decisions  were  issued  in  France  with  190  cases,  which  represent  56  %  of  the  positive 
decisions in all the EU+ countries.  

Table  7:  First  instance  decisions  on  applications  by  citizenship  (Georgia),  2012-2014 
with positive decision in 2014 per EU+ country 

Member State or Associated State 
European Union (28 countries) 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 

2012 

2013 

2014 

6,850
540
0
10
25
585
25
15
1,120
10
2,585
0

49 

6,350
230
0
20
40
1,380
0
15
855
10
2,335
0

6,145 
285 
0 
20 
30 
1,035 
5 
10 
1,090 
20 
2,600 
0 

Positive 
decision 
in 2014 
340
25
0
0
0
10
0
5
10
0
190
0

 
 
 
 
 
60 
5 
40 
35 
0 
20 
0 
295 

Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Iceland 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 
Switzerland 
Total 
Source: Eurostat data last updated 20.03.2015, extracted on 25.03.2015. 

110
5
30
70
5
15
0
150
215 : 
435
0
15
0
0
5
385
20
5
0
60
475
6,895

35
5
45
230
0
5
0
245
285
490
0
5
0
10
15
530
25
0
0
80
450
7,380

170 
0 
5 
0 
5 
20 
360 
40 
5 
0 
30 
275 
6,455 

: 

25
0
0
0
0
5
0
5

40
0
0
0
0
10
15
0
0
0
0
10
350

2.2.1. Visa free regime possible impacts 

In the context of current flows the most likely impact of a visa-free regime would be an 
increase  of  asylum  applicants  thanks  to  the  opening  of  legal  travel  channels  to 
previously  non-eligible  for  visa  persons:  Georgian  nationals  wishing  to  overstay  in  the 
Schengen area could lodge an application for asylum as a way to legalise their stay.  

FRONTEX notes that in case of detection of irregular stay, Georgian nationals tend to apply 
for asylum with the intention to abscond from the asylum centre in order to continue to their 
principal destination countries.   

Furthermore, other concerns regarding the possible development of asylum application relate 
to the presence of long term IDPs in Georgia: for them, emigration to the EU may be the 
best option in the future if not enough State support with monthly targeted social assistance is 
provided  (in  terms  of  social  protection  of  families  and  children,  legal  assistance,  education 
and employment proposals, pension funds warranty, etc.).  

Data  also  shows  that  a  new  political  crisis  could  also  increase  immediately  the  asylum 
applications in all EU Schengen countries.  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. ASSESSMENT OF SECURITY IMPACTS 

3.1. Organised crime: trends and possible impacts of a visa-free travel 

According to Europol and the Transcrime study edited by DG HOME19, Georgian Organised 
Crime Groups are already present and active in at least 12 EU Member States: Austria, 
Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  France,  Greece,  Germany,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal, 
Slovakia,  Spain  and  Sweden.  Georgian  and  Russian  speaking  OCGs  appear  to  be  the  most 
widespread in Europe in terms of investments in the legitimate economy with an established 
presence. 

They are particularly active in the following criminal activities: theft, assault, pick-pocketing, 
residential and commercial burglaries, robberies, fraud, drug trafficking, extortion, facilitation 
or irregular migration, trafficking in human beings, cigarette smuggling, euro counterfeiting, 
murder, organised property crime, money laundering, and corruption. 

Georgian  and  Russian  speaking  organised  crime  groups  invest  mainly  in  construction, 
transportation and logistics, real estate, wholesale and retail trade, hotels, bars and restaurants. 
Their activities in the legal economy are often related to schemes to launder the proceeds of 
their criminal activities. 
Georgian  OCGs  control  a  large  proportion  of  the  criminal  markets  in  the  countries  of  the 
former Soviet Union. The use of the Russian language and a common background facilitates 
their cooperation with other groups from the region. 

According  to  Europol  the  visa  liberalisation  is  not  likely  to  result  in  an  important 
increase of the smuggling of irregular migrants of Georgians to the EU. On the contrary, 
the visa-free regime will provide a framework for legal travel and, consequently, should have 
a  positive  impact  on  reducing  the  facilitation  services  offered  by  Georgian  OCGs  and  other 
criminal networks.  

But visa liberalisation might open up new opportunities for OCGs as they will be able to 
carry out their activities and investments in a less controlled environment, from the visa 
perspective, and adapt in their methods to the new conditions. Nevertheless it is important 
to note that many of the members residing in the EU Member States have lost their Georgian 
citizenship,  and hence  do  not  possess the Georgian biometric passports necessary to benefit 
from visa-free travel.  

With  the  enhancing  of  mobility,  OCGs  will  most  likely  seek  the  freedom  of  movement 
for the facilitation of irregular migration with counterfeit Georgian biometric passports, 
and seeking to abuse the asylum systems of the EU Member States. 

3.2. Trafficking in human beings: trends and possible impacts of a visa-free travel 

According to EUROPOL, EU Member States are not the main destination countries for 
Georgian victims of THB. Accordingly, a visa-free regime is unlikely going to change that 
trend and will not lead to an increase exploitation of Georgian citizens in the EU.  

19 EUROPOL input to the Assessment of Impact, July 2014 and the Transcrime study "From illegal markets to 
legitimate businesses: The portfolio of organised crime in Europe" (published in March 2015 and available on 
DG HOME's website) 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.3. Arms and Drug trafficking: trends and possible impacts of a visa-free travel 

There  is  no  evidence  available  to  suggest  that  Georgian  OCGs  are  involved  in  arms 
trafficking within the EU. 

But EUROPOL notes that seizures in recent years show that the South Caucasus route 
is  used  for  the  trafficking  of  Afghan  heroin.  Ferry  connections  across  the  Black  Sea, 
especially  between  Georgia  and  Ukraine,  may  offer  smuggling  opportunities  for  traffickers 
and may require increased attention, especially should in the future Ukraine citizens obtain as 
well the possibility of travelling visa-free to the Schengen area.    

New  channels  and  modalities  of  trafficking  for  the  Georgian  OCGs  could  arise  in 
exploiting the Black Sea route for the trafficking of heroin from Afghanistan in view of a 
visa free regime. The growing number of passengers travelling from Georgia to the EU 
could also be used as couriers.  

4. MAIN CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY IN CASE OF VISA FREE-REGIME  

The  data  and  information  available  give  prospective  main  trends  in  migration  and  security  areas, 
showing  that  EU  is  an  attractive  destination  for  migrants  from  Georgia  with  potential  security 
challenges to be monitored.  

4.1. Key possible impacts on migration trends 

(a) 

Visa  liberalisation  for  Georgia  will  reduce  the  barriers  and  costs  associated  with 
travelling  to  the  EU,  which  will  lead  to  changes  in  the  type  of  smuggling  services 
needed  (from  facilitation  of  illegal  entry  to  attempting  legalisation  of  stay  after 
overstaying).  

(b)   Given the current economic  developments in Georgia, EU  is an attractive  option for 
labour  migrants  from  Georgia.  Likewise,  the  demand  for  domestic  work  in  Member 
States will remain robust and the demand for permits residence will likely increase.  

(c)   With 18% of the population aged under 15 as at 2013, Georgia will have to provide 

inclusive economic opportunities in the near future to avoid large emigration flows. 

(d)   Visa  liberalisation  could  be  abused  to  apply  for  asylum  in  EU  Member  states  by 

Georgian nationals as a way to legalise their overstay.  

(e)   However,  the  relatively  small  population  of  Georgia  would  likely  keep  the  flows 

(f)  

relatively small in comparison with larger eastern neighbours of the EU.  
As  seen  during  the  last  armed  conflicts  or  past  main  political  developments,  EU 
Member States will remain an attractive option for asylum seekers and rapid increases 
of asylum applications and emigration in all EU + Schengen countries cannot be ruled 
out in case of new important armed conflict and the subsequent potential increase of 
IDPs fleeing a conflict.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2. Key possible impacts on security trends 

(a)   Georgian  OCGs  are  already  present  in  several  EU  Member  States,  and  Visa 
liberalisation  in  Georgia  may  facilitate  criminal  activities  carried  out  by  Georgian 
OCGs and their partners, especially regarding the trafficking of goods and drugs from 
Georgia to EU Member States.    
The market for OCGs facilitating the irregular migration of Georgian nationals to the 
EU will probably decrease, compelling OCGs to seek new opportunities, for example 
by  facilitating  the  travel  of  ethnic  minorities  or  other  nationalities  by  attempting  to 
provide  them  with  stolen  or  counterfeit  Georgian  passports,  or  helping  to  abuse 
asylum system of the EU MS.    

(b)  

53