In 2025, courts of two instances heard various cases involving the founder of the media outlets Batumelebi and Netgazeti, imprisoned Mzia Amaghlobeli. The courts issued numerous rulings, including in cases concerning so-called “prisoners of conscience.” Alongside individuals detained without justification, the fate of opposition party leaders and people critical of “Georgian Dream” was also being decided in court.
From late 2025 into early 2026, trials were held against former high-ranking officials of “Georgian Dream,” including former two-time Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili. He is accused of receiving illegal income. Court proceedings were also held in cases involving businessmen linked to “Georgian Dream.”
Covering such proceedings is a priority for the media. Stories like these appear on the front pages of media outlets or as the lead segment of television news. However, as a result of laws adopted by the “Georgian Dream” parliament and amendments made to existing legislation, media coverage of court proceedings has been significantly restricted. Ultimately, this harms the public’s interest in receiving comprehensive information about court cases.
On June 18, 2025, “Georgian Dream” initiated and soon after, through an expedited procedure, adopted amendments to the Organic Law on Common Courts, which introduced the following changes:
● Photography, filming, video recording, broadcasting, and audio recording were banned inside court buildings, in courtrooms, and in court courtyards.
● In addition to these restrictions, broadcasters’ access to covering court proceedings was also limited. Specifically, a provision in force since 2013 was abolished, under which the Public Broadcaster could cover court proceedings without restriction, and if it did not exercise this right, it could transfer filming rights to another broadcaster with the judge’s prior written consent.
● The right to confiscate personal items was introduced. Courts were granted the authority to seize mobile phones, computers, photo, video, and audio equipment, and other items from individuals entering the building.
● At the same time, the publicity of court decisions was restricted. Court acts become public only after the final decision enters into legal force. Any person, including the media, is prohibited from publishing decisions without depersonalization. Information is released only in accordance with procedures established by the Administrative Code.
● Liability for contempt of court was introduced. Specifically, expressing disrespect toward a judge—by the parties, other participants in the case, or any other person, in any form (verbally, through obscene or similar actions) and in any circumstance (during a court hearing or in a public space), insofar as it relates to the judge’s status—entails liability as provided by law.
As a result of these changes, media representatives who remain outside court buildings have been left with inadequate working conditions. No designated spaces have been arranged on court premises where they could work without obstruction. In summer they must work in extreme heat, and in winter in freezing conditions, in order to provide the public with information about critically important cases.
The Media Advocacy Coalition is calling on the High Council of Justice to create properly equipped and safe working spaces for media representatives. The coalition describes the working conditions of independent media as “extremely critical.”
Since the restrictive laws came into force, the Center for Media, Information and Social Research (CMIS) has documented practices in which journalists are subjected to physical violence in courts, their equipment is damaged, they are verbally abused, and they are prevented from carrying out their professional duties. Similar incidents include the following:
● During the December 17, 2025 hearing in the case of 13 individuals detained in the so-called “October 4 case,” television journalists requested permission to leave the courtroom once in order to go live on air. Tbilisi City Court Judge Tamar Makharoblidze stated that if the journalists left the hearing, they would not be allowed to return to the courtroom.
● On November 23, 2025, at the Zugdidi District Court, a journalist from TV Pirveli had their mobile phone confiscated. According to the broadcaster, the journalist was allowed into the courtroom only after the Bailiff Service sealed the phone.
● On November 11, 2025, the Kutaisi Court of Appeal heard the appeal of imprisoned Mzia Amaghlobeli, founder of Batumelebi and Netgazeti, in a small courtroom with a capacity of 24 people. The seats filled quickly, preventing even journalists who wished to cover the hearing from attending.
● On October 1, 2025, the Tbilisi City Court bailiff threatened Publika online outlet journalist Mindia Gabadze with calling the police and attempted to physically assault him. Gabadze was covering the court hearing of activist Gela Khasaia.
● On October 1, 2025, a bailiff employee at the Tbilisi City Court took the phone of Formula TV journalist Natali Jakhutashvili and returned it broken.
● On July 22, 2025, the head of the Tbilisi City Court Bailiff Service, Davit Matiashvili, threatened Publika editor Zurab Vardiashvili with legal liability for recording video. Vardiashvili was trying to document how the Bailiff Service forcibly removed an opposition party member from the court building.
● On July 10, 2025, Judge Nino Galustashvili closed the Lomidze–Zasokhashvili trial and ordered everyone present, including journalists, to leave the courtroom after a photograph from the hearing was circulated.
An order issued by the High Council of Justice in July 2025 can be regarded as an unfair and politically motivated decision toward the media. Television companies Imedi and the Public Broadcaster, controlled by “Georgian Dream,” were granted permission to film the court proceedings of businessman Giorgi Bachyashvili, who is considered Bidzina Ivanishvili’s “personal prisoner.” This was the first case since the legislative changes banning media filming of court proceedings in which the High Council of Justice granted such permission. Journalists from Imedi and the Public Broadcaster stated that they applied to the High Council of Justice on July 28, 2025, and received permission the following day.
Problems with judicial independence and a form of “clan-based governance” aligned with “Georgian Dream” are recognized both domestically and internationally. An influential group of judges has formed within the judicial system, which exercises control over judicial power through the High Council of Justice.
Concentrated in the Council’s hands are a nepotistic system of judicial appointments and promotions, the appointment of court chairs based on vested interests, and mechanisms of disciplinary proceedings. Under conditions of heavy caseloads and prolonged proceedings, the constant threat of disciplinary liability creates governance based on fear, increases corruption risks, and substantially restricts judicial independence.
The combination of these mechanisms forms a model of clan-based governance, under which the judicial system is significantly dependent on informal influence.
