By Order No. 01-74 of 27 January 2025, ¹ the Georgian Dream’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maka Bochorishvili, amended the Rules for Conducting Diplomatic Service, unlawfully worsening the legal status of diplomatic service employees. ² This move continues the repressive measures against civil servants that have been ongoing since December 2024 and directly mirrors the amendments made to the Law on Civil Service in December. ³ In this case, the Ministry has also grossly violated the principle of formal legality.

According to the amendments, the order, as a subordinate act, unlawfully worsens the legal status established by the superior act—the Law on Diplomatic Service—violating the hierarchy set by the Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts. Moreover, the substantive changes effectively subordinate the Diplomatic Service to party interests. Specifically:

1. Extension of the administrative agreement to diplomatic officials in violation of the Law of Georgia “On Diplomatic Service”

According to the amendments to the order regulating the “Rules for Conducting Diplomatic Service,” new concepts of a primary structural unit and its deputy have been introduced, with these positions now subject to appointment by an administrative agreement. ⁴ Consequently, the Director General of the General Directorate of the Ministry, the Director of the Department, the Deputy Director of the Department, and the Head of the Minister’s Secretariat will be appointed by an administrative agreement, despite the fact that the Law on Diplomatic Service does not classify these positions as ones subject to such agreements. ⁵

The legal basis for the organization of the diplomatic service of Georgia, the relations related to the conduct of diplomatic service, and the legal status of a person serving in the diplomatic service are regulated by the Law of Georgia “On Diplomatic Service.” This law is more specific than the Law of Georgia “On Public Service.” It defines the concept of a person employed under an administrative agreement and explicitly states that such a person “does not hold a position provided for by this Law for a diplomatic official, administrative personnel, or technical personnel.” ⁶ Furthermore, according to this law, the Director General of the General Directorate of the Ministry and the Director of the Department of the Ministry hold the highest diplomatic positions, while the Deputy Director of the Department of the Ministry and the Head of the Secretariat of the Minister also hold high-ranking diplomatic positions. ⁷ Additionally, the law sets out the grounds for the dismissal of diplomatic officials, as well as administrative and technical personnel. ⁸

The regulation introduced by the Minister’s order, as a sub-legal act, clearly contradicts the provisions of the law regarding the legal status of these officials and the procedure for their dismissal. In Georgia’s legal system, legislative acts have superior legal force over subordinate normative acts, ⁹ meaning that the amendments made to the rule approved by the Minister’s order fail to meet even the basic requirements of formal legality.

The changes took effect immediately upon publication on 28 January 2025. Notably, the aforementioned officials will retroactively be considered employed under an administrative contract from 1 January 2025. ¹⁰ Additionally, the order published in the official newspaper is mistakenly dated 28 November 2025, a future date.

2. Subordination of the diplomatic service to party interests

Beyond the issue of formal legality, this regulation serves as a tool for politicizing the diplomatic service, undermining the guarantees of those employed in it, and enabling political discrimination against them.

It is alarming that, as a result of the changes, the termination of the Minister's authority will automatically lead to the termination of the contracts of the aforementioned individuals. ¹¹ The mentioned amendment contradicts the Constitutional Court of Georgia's decision of 17 October 2017, No. 3/5/626, in the case *Oleg Latsabidze v. Parliament of Georgia* (hereinafter - the *Latsabidze case*).¹² In this case, the Constitutional Court found it unconstitutional to terminate the powers of the head of a structural unit upon the election of a new mayor. The Court emphasized that the effective exercise of such powers requires professionalism, experience, personal skills, and other qualities essential for fulfilling official duties. Furthermore, the Court criticized the automatic termination of the head of a structural unit’s powers without the newly elected mayor having the opportunity to assess their competence.

At the same time, the Constitutional Court categorically rejected the legitimate goal asserted by Parliament, which claimed that every new head should have the opportunity to appoint their own team. The Court stated: *“The existence of a democratic state does not imply the replacement of all civil servants with new cadres and members of the political teams of newly elected officials after each election. In a democratic state, the change of professional cadres cannot depend on the change of the political team or, more broadly, on political processes. This is not only not a requirement of democracy but fundamentally contradicts it.”* Since the head of a structural unit is a purely professional position, their replacement after each election is not a constitutional requirement.

Both the amendments to the Civil Service Law and the Minister's Order completely contradict the concept of a professional civil servant and, in fact, abolish the first-rank position in the civil servant hierarchy. At the same time, they halt the civil servant's career development at the second-rank hierarchy. Such changes are incompatible with the institution of a professional civil servant, which should be protected from political decisions and serve as a guarantee of the stability of the civil service. Additionally, this arrangement poses a serious risk of political manipulation by the ruling party. The Civil Service Law initially separated political and executive functions to protect the civil service from political influence. However, these amendments fundamentally change that approach. First, the heads of structural units may be appointed based on party loyalty, as they are no longer required to remain politically neutral, unlike professional civil servants. On the other hand, individuals appointed in this manner will be subject to arbitrary dismissal if their views no longer align with party interests. This, in turn, puts both the employee and the structure in a vulnerable position, with the effectiveness and identity of the structure depending heavily on the stability and permanence of professional staff.

3. Discretion to terminate the contract at any time

As a result of the amendment, in the diplomatic service, in addition to legal grounds, it becomes possible to terminate the contract of the above-mentioned officials at the initiative of one of the parties, about which the other party must be notified 1 month in advance. If, in accordance with this paragraph, the administrative contract is terminated at the initiative of the minister, the person employed under the administrative contract is given compensation in the amount of 1 month's official salary. ¹³

The Constitutional Court has already declared such a regulation unconstitutional. In particular, in the Oleg Latsabidze case, the Constitutional Court also addressed the norm allowing the mayor to dismiss the head of a structural unit at any time. ¹⁴ The court determined that “the disputed norm granted the authority to the Gamgebeli/Mayor to dismiss the head of a structural unit of the Gamgeoba/City Hall at his discretion.” This resulted in an infringement of the right guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution, as the respondent party failed to provide legitimate justifications for such interference. ¹⁵ The Constitutional Court declared the mayor’s absolute discretion to dismiss the head of a primary structural unit unconstitutional.

Conclusion

GYLA believes that the changes made to the rules for passing the diplomatic service are a clear continuation of the repression directed at civil servants. Specifically, since November 28, 2024, after civil servants expressed their protest against the policy of the “Georgian Dream,” which included suspending the negotiation process with the European Union, intensive pressure on civil servants began. This pressure was ultimately reflected in the amendments made to the “Law on Civil Service.” It is worth emphasizing that employees of the “Ministry of Foreign Affairs” were among the first civil servants to openly condemn the current events, resulting in direct or indirect threats of dismissal for them, as well as for other civil servants with critical opinions. Additionally, representatives of the “Georgian Dream” made calls for these individuals to resign from their positions. ¹⁶

According to the Criminal Code of Georgia, forcing a person to write a statement on their own initiative for dismissal from work is a punishable act. ¹⁷ Therefore, considering the current events, if such coercion occurs, investigative bodies are obligated to conduct an investigation, and the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia, as a constitutional body, must provide effective supervision. However, it is also important to note that the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia has generally shown indifference to crimes of this nature. ¹⁸

In the event that diplomatic officials accept an offer to change the basis for their appointment and transfer to an administrative agreement based on the aforementioned order, this will be contrary to the law. Since, in cases where a subordinate act is inconsistent with the law, the regulations of the law should prevail, the contradictions between the aforementioned order and the Law on Diplomatic Service create a legal basis for appealing and declaring the order invalid, as well as for declaring the legal consequences resulting from the order as unlawful.

We appeal to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia:

● To make public whether the regulation provided for by Order No. 01-74 of January 27, 2025, which is inconsistent with the Law of Georgia "On Diplomatic Service", has come into force on legal relations arising from January 1, 2025.

1 Order of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia dated January 27, 2025 “On Approval of the Rules for Conducting Diplomatic Service” on Amendments to Order No. 01-74 of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia dated May 2, 201

2 Order No. 01-74 of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia of May 2, 2019 "On Approval of the Rules for Conducting Diplomatic Service".

3 GYLA, Accelerated amendments to the Law on Civil Service serve to increase pressure on civil servants and further politicize the civil service, 16.12.2024, https://gyla.ge/post/sajaro-samsaxuris-shesaxebkanoni-cvlilebebi , [30.01.2025]

4 Ibid., Article 3, Paragraph 1, and Article 111, Paragraphs 1-2, of the Rules of Diplomatic Service.

5 Law of Georgia “On Diplomatic Service”, Articles 12, 3-13

6 Subparagraph I, g, of Article 2 of the Law of Georgia “On Diplomatic Service”.

7 Ibid., verses 12-13.

8 Ibid., Article 40.

9 Paragraph 7 of Article 7 of the Law of Georgia “On Normative Acts”.

10 Order of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia dated January 27, 2025 "On Approval of the Rules for Conducting Diplomatic Service" on Amendments to Order of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia dated May 2, 2019 No. 01-74, Article 3, Article 11 (Prima), Part 2.

11 Ibid., Article 111, paragraph 7.

12 Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia No. 3/5/626 of October 17, 2017 in the case Oleg Latsabidze v. Parliament of Georgia, see: https://constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=1086 , [31.01.2025].

13 Ibid., Article 111, paragraph 8.

14 Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of October 17, 2017, No. 3/5/626 in the case Oleg Latsabidze v. Parliament of Georgia II-51.

15 Ibid

16 It is unacceptable to persecute and pressure public servants because of their different political views,02.12.2024, https://gyla.ge/post/gancxadebeba-2dekemberi , [02.12.2024]; IPN, Kakha Kaladze on the statement of the employees of the City Hall: I was expecting this, we have announced a reorganization in the City Hall, relocations are planned, God bless everyone on their way, 01.12.2024, https://www.interpressnews.ge/en/article/135532-kakha-kaladze-on-the-statement-of-the-employees-of-the-city-hall-i-was-expecting-this-we-have-announced-a-reorganization-in-the-city-hall-relocations-are-planned-god-bless-everyone-on-their-way/, [30.01.2025]; IPN, Nino Tsilosani on the employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: it is disgusting that diplomats allegedly swear by the EU in exchange for the interests of their own country - after this farce, you will be more convincing if you leave your positions, 29.11.2024, https://www.interpressnews.ge/en/article/135405-nino-tsilosani-on-the-employees-of-the-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-it-is-disgusting-that-diplomats-allegedly-swear-by-the-eu-in-exchange-for-the-interests-of-their-own-country-after-this-farce-you-will-be-more-convincing-if-you-leave-your-positions/, [30.01.2025]; Civil Georgia, Kobakhidze Alludes to Purges, Says Civil Service is “Self-Cleansing”, 02.12.2024, https://civil.ge/archives/640508, [30.01.2025].

17 Article 169 of the Criminal Code.

18 GYLA, Criminal Justice Process Monitoring Report (N17), 2024, 66-7.