Administrative body

The Revenue Service has placed a lien on the accounts of the publication ‘Batumelebi’

On July 21, 2025, it became known that the Revenue Service had placed a lien on the accounts of the publication Batumelebi. According to the organization, the official reason is debt, but the real reason is the intention to shut down the media organization.

According to media reports, the agency gave them a five-day deadline to pay the debt; otherwise, the accounts would be subjected to a lien, after which the property would be seized and the National Bureau of Enforcement would begin the enforcement process — selling the organization’s assets, including its office and editorial technical equipment.

According to the publication, at this stage their debt to the budget — the principal amount — is 47,000 GEL, with interest adding 126,000 GEL and a fine of 109,000 GEL. Batumelebi had acknowledged its debt to the state and had been making monthly payments to cover it. After the threat of a lien, Batumelebi officially contacted the Revenue Service and requested a payment schedule (the Tax Code allows debt to be paid in installments), but they were refused. On July 17, Batumelebi’s accounts were subjected to a lien.

The publication perceived this action as another attempt to pressure them and as an effort to shut down the media outlet. For more than six months, the founder and media manager, Mazia Amaglobeli, has been in detention. She is accused of assaulting a police officer for slapping the chief of Batumi police and faces 4 to 7 years in prison. Her trial is nearing its conclusion, with the final session — where Judge Nino Galustashvili will announce the verdict — scheduled for August 1.

“The lien and all other operations planned in the past week are aimed at breaking Mazia Amaglobeli and, in the long term, destroying the media organization she founded. A simple confirmation of this is one example: according to official information from the Revenue Service on May 21, 2025, TV company Imedi owes 17 million GEL to the budget. Rustavi 2 owes 25 million GEL to the budget,” the organization stated.

The “Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics” also assessed the incident as pressure on the media. The charter urges the Revenue Service to lift the lien on the publication’s accounts and to provide a schedule for debt repayment. Batumelebi’s case is part of a systemic campaign carried out by the Georgian Dream party against independent journalism and media, according to a statement by another organization, the “Media Advocacy Coalition.”

The international human rights organization Amnesty International also commented on the situation: “The accounts of the independent Georgian publication Batumelebi were frozen after alleged cases of police violence against its founder, Mazia Amaglobeli, who is currently unlawfully detained and facing a tainted trial. Amnesty calls for a full investigation of all allegations of police violence,” the statement read.

Update: On July 22, after the news received significant attention from both local and international media organizations, the Revenue Service offered Batumelebi a payment schedule and lifted the lien. On the same day, thanks to support from readers who launched a major campaign to help the publication, the principal amount of the debt was covered.

Media Access to Courts Restricted Starting Today

On June 26, 2025, “Georgian Dream” Parliament adopted amendments to the Organic Law on Common Courts in the third reading under an accelerated procedure. The new regulations, which came into force immediately upon publication, prohibit photo and video recording by the media during court hearings. As a result of the changes, recording is also restricted both inside court buildings and in the courtyards and hallways. These amendments fundamentally changed the rules for covering court proceedings. Today, June 30, according to information released by “Publika”, media representatives were not allowed into the Tbilisi City Court with cameras, and filming with phones was also restricted in the courtyard.

Today, the trial of 11 individuals detained on charges of group violence during pro-European protest rallies was taking place at the Tbilisi City Court. Media representatives appealed to the High Council of Justice for permission to record the hearing, but they did not receive a response. Lawyers also addressed the judge regarding the permission to record the hearing. However, according to the judge, since there was no decision presented to the court regarding permission for recording, the hearing would proceed without audio or video recording.

To date, the High Council of Justice has not established a procedure outlining how permission for media coverage of court hearings should be granted. It is known that such coverage is only possible with the Council’s permission, but the form and rules for granting this permission remain unclear. The absence of clear regulations creates a risk of arbitrary practices, which significantly restricts media freedom and the transparency of court proceedings.

Amendments to the Organic Law on Common Courts Restrict Transparency of Court Proceedings

On June 18, Parliament initiated amendments to the Organic Law on Common Courts, which were reviewed under an accelerated procedure and adopted in the third reading on June 26. Among the changes is a ban on photo and video recording by the media during court hearings. The amendments fundamentally change the rules for media coverage of court proceedings and, in effect, make it nearly impossible for journalists to report on them. The new regulations restrict recording not only inside courtrooms but also in court yards and hallways.

Key Changes:

Restrictions on Recording in Courts:
Photo, video, and audio recording or broadcasting is prohibited within court buildings, courtrooms, and court yards—except in cases where such actions are authorized by the court or an authorized official. Video and audio recording or broadcasting of a hearing may be allowed only if the High Council of Justice of Georgia issues a specific decision authorizing it for that particular court hearing.
Limitations on Broadcaster Access:
The provision that previously allowed the Public Broadcaster to cover court hearings without restriction has been abolished. Under the previous rule, if the Public Broadcaster did not exercise this right, another broadcaster could record the hearing with prior written permission from the judge.
Right to Confiscate Personal Devices:
Courts are granted the authority to confiscate mobile phones, computers, photo/video/audio equipment, and other personal items from individuals entering the court building.
Restriction on Public Access to Court Decisions:
Court decisions will only be made public after they have entered into legal force. Any person, including the media, is prohibited from publishing decisions without depersonalization. Access to information permitted only through procedures established by the General Administrative Code of Georgia.
Liability for Disrespecting the Court:
Any act of disrespect toward a judge—whether verbal, obscene, or otherwise—by parties, other individuals involved in the case, or any third person, in any context (courtroom or public space), if related to the judge’s status, will be subject to legal liability.

These amendments significantly undermine the principle of transparency in court proceedings and impose unjustified restrictions ont media access to open hearings, in contradiction with democratic principles of openness and accountability.

Another Legislative Initiative by Georgian Dream Against Freedom of Speech and Expression

On June 18, Georgian Dream initiated amendments to the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression, which were reviewed by Parliament under an accelerated procedure. On June 26, Parliament unanimously adopted sweeping restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. These amendments are a continuation of more than ten legislative changes introduced by Georgian Dream that either restrict previously protected human rights standards or impose stricter sanctions for various violations.

Key Changes Introduced by the Law:

Redefinition of Defamation:
Defamation is now defined as a “substantially false and damaging statement,” with the requirement to prove harm removed. Under the current version of the law, proof of harm is essential in determining whether a statement constitutes defamation.
Shifting the Burden of Proof:
The burden of proof in defamation cases is shifted to the defendant—the person who made the statement—who must now prove the truthfulness of the statement. Previously, this burden rested with the claimant.
Expansion of Damage Compensation:
If the court finds that a retraction or correction is insufficient to remedy the harm caused, the defendant may be required to pay moral and/or material damages.
Elimination of Protection Mechanisms:
The provision stating that a defendant’s refusal to disclose a source or professional secret cannot be the sole basis for a judgment against them is being abolished.
Abolishment of “Qualified Privilege”:
The law will no longer protect individuals who made a factual error despite conducting reasonable fact-checking, acted in the public interest, or reported fairly and accurately on issues of public concern. This change is expected to especially harm critical media and journalists, particularly in cases where subjects of reports often refuse to cooperate.
New Restrictions on Public Insult:
The law introduces content-based regulation of freedom of expression if it concerns “insults in public spaces.” Previously, only direct, face-to-face insults were legally actionable. Now, broader categories of public insult fall within the law’s scope.
Elimination of a Key Safeguard on Privacy and Free Expression:
The clause stating that the right to privacy cannot be used as a basis to restrict freedom of expression is being removed. This safeguard previously protected the media and the public in cases where information of public interest also implicated private matters, particularly involving public officials. Its removal increases the risk of suppressing information under the pretext of protecting privacy, undermining transparency and democratic accountability
Retroactive Enforcement:
The law includes a 100-day retroactive provision, meaning that the new regulations will apply to statements made up to 100 days before the law officially comes into force.
Removal of a Pro-Free Expression Clause:
The following phrase will also be removed from the law: “Any doubt that cannot be resolved according to the procedures established by law must be resolved against restricting freedom of speech.”

These legislative changes significantly hinder the work of independent media, civil society, and critical citizens, and run counter to both constitutional and international human rights standards.

The Public Registry is delaying the registration of personnel changes at TV “Formula”

According to TV Formula, the Public Registry is delaying the registration of personnel changes made within the company’s executive team.

As Formula reports, the company submitted an application to the Public Registry on June 1, 2025, requesting the registration of changes to the director and supervisory board. In accordance with the Registry’s request, the registration process was temporarily suspended. On June 10, the company submitted all the additionally requested documentation. The decision was supposed to be reflected on the next working day; however, despite the legally defined deadline having passed, the National Agency of Public Registry has yet to complete the process.

Formula states that this delay is hindering the organization’s operations.

According to the TV company, on May 14, 2025, Formula’s general assembly approved the dismissal of Zurab Gumbaridze from the position of director and appointed Mikheil Mshvildadze—who owns a 38.25% stake in the company—as the new director. The former director, Zurab Gumbaridze, was elected as chairman of Formula’s supervisory board. The company is now awaiting the Public Registry’s registration of these changes.

Grant to “Tabula” Blocked Under New Law

On June 11, 2025, it was announced that the online outlet Tabula would no longer be able to receive a £50,000 grant from the UK government, which it had won through a competitive selection process.

According to the outlet, the funding was intended to support public awareness around the upcoming municipal elections in Georgia. In its statement, Tabula explained that, in compliance with Georgia’s newly adopted “Law on Grants,” the UK government had reached out to the Georgian government to obtain formal approval for the grant. The response from the Georgian authorities indicated delays in the approval process, after which the UK government canceled the project.

The UK government also released a statement confirming the cancellation. It noted that the UK had made a good-faith effort to secure the Georgian government’s approval for several grant projects aimed at supporting civil society in voter education and election monitoring. However, “following discussions with the Georgian authorities, we were informed that the government’s resolution on the ‘grant approval procedure’ has not yet been finalized. As a result, there are currently no clear mechanisms or timelines for decision-making under this law. Unfortunately, due to this uncertainty, we are forced to cancel our planned grant proposals intended to support transparency and competitiveness in the upcoming municipal elections,” the statement said.

The controversial “Law on Grants” was amended by the ruling Georgian Dream party on April 16, 2025. Under the new regulations, donors must request approval from the Georgian government before issuing a grant. If a recipient accepts a grant without prior government approval, they face a fine equal to twice the amount of the grant received.

Journalists Summoned to Court Over Criticism of the Politicians on Social Media

On June 12, 2025, six journalists were summoned to Tbilisi City Court for expressing critical opinions about the politicians on social media. The journalists are Eka Mishveladze (TV Pirveli), Vika Bukia (TV Pirveli), Misha Mshvildadze (TV Formula), Dea Mamiseishvili (Mtavari Arkhi), Vakho Sanaia (TV Formula), and Nanuka Zhorzholiani (independent journalist). They were informed that they are being accused of “insulting Georgian Dream politicians” on Facebook.

Three of the six – Eka Mishveladze, Misha Mshvildadze, and Dea Mamiseishvili – were found guilty of administrative offenses by the court and fined. Mishvildadze and Mishveladze were each fined 4,000 GEL, while Mamiseishvili was fined 3,000 GEL.

Misha Mshvildadze was fined for a February 8 post about Georgian Dream parliamentary speaker Shalva Papuashvili. Dea Mamiseishvili received her fine for a February 25 post referencing Mamuka Mdinaradze, the party’s executive secretary. Eka Mishveladze was fined for a May 31 status about MP Mariam Lashkhi.

Nanuka Zhorzholiani is accused of “insulting” Georgian Dream MPs Tea Tsulukiani and Mariam Lashkhi. A decision in her case is expected on June 17. Vika Bukia is also being sued for allegedly insulting MP Mariam Lashkhi in a video she posted on May 13. Her case has been postponed until June 18. Vakho Sanaia’s case has also been postponed to June 18. He is accused of insulting Speaker Shalva Papuashvili and MPs Tea Tsulukiani and Irakli Zarkua. On June 20 it became known that Sanaia was fined 4,000 GEL.

In all six cases, the legal basis for the complaints is a newly enacted article 173^16 of the Administrative Offenses Code. This provision imposes liability for actions such as verbal insults, swearing, offensive slurs, or other abusive behavior directed at state-political officials, public servants, or equivalent individuals during or in connection with the performance of their official duties. Penalties range from a fine of 1,500 to 4,000 GEL or up to 45 days of imprisonment.

According to the Georgian Young Lawyers Association, posts published on social media, unless they contain a threat of real risk and are directed at politicians who have a high duty of tolerance, are protected by freedom of expression. “Any judicial interpretation made contrary to this standard would be a precedent for mass censorship,” the organization’s statement reads.

Legislative Changes Threaten Media Freedom

On June 12, Parliament passed amendments to the “Law on Grants” in the third reading with 84 votes. The amendments broaden the definition of a grant to include technical and expert assistance, knowledge sharing, and other similar types of contributions.

This change follows an earlier amendment made in April, which requires the government or an authorized official to approve the receipt of foreign grants. The ruling party, Georgian Dream, describes this as a mechanism to protect state sovereignty. However, civil society groups argue that the changes are aimed at dismantling civil society itself.

For NGOs and the media, international grants are a key source of funding for independent work. These amendments are viewed as part of a broader legislative package targeting civil society and the media.

Legislative Changes Increase Regulator’s Control Over Broadcasters

On June 12, 2025, the one-party parliament adopted a legislative package in its third reading, which introduced amendments to, among others, the Law on Broadcasting. Under these changes, the Communications Commission was granted the authority to request confidential information about broadcasters from banks through the court system. A new chapter was added to the Administrative Procedures Code Of Georgia to reflect this amendment.

According to the Media Advocacy Coalition, “There is absolutely no necessity to grant such powers to the regulator. Furthermore, the additional powers exceed the agency’s overall mandate. Granting the Commission the ability to breach banking confidentiality creates a new tool for financial pressure and blackmail against the media.”

Initially, the amendments to the Law “On Broadcasting” were adopted by the “Georgian Dream” parliament on April 1, 2025.

According to the amendments, foreign funding of broadcasters was completely banned, the authority of the regulatory body, the National Communications Commission, was significantly increased, in particular, the professional activities of journalists were brought under the scope of regulation.

According to the amendments, it is prohibited for a broadcaster to receive direct or indirect funding from the so-called “foreign power” and for a foreign power to purchase a broadcaster’s services, except for advertising or product placement.
According to the amendment, broadcasters are prohibited from receiving direct or indirect funding in exchange for placing social advertising.
The law considers the following as a foreign power: a) a subject constituting the government system of a foreign state; b) a natural person who is not a citizen of Georgia; c) a legal entity that is not established on the basis of Georgian legislation; d) An organizational unit or other type of association of persons established under the law of a foreign state and/or international law.

The amendment also introduces detailed regulations regarding standards for television and radio broadcasting, due accuracy of facts and the right to reply. Regulations are also added on the fairness and impartiality of facts, inviolability of private life, obtaining and transmitting information using covert methods, reporting on armed conflict, accidents and other emergency situations, and certain issues related to the protection of minors.

Transparency International Georgia states that the law, among other laws adopted by the GD in the past year, pose a threat to the existence of independent media.

Together with this, the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, also known as the “Russian Law,” has been in effect in Georgia since 2024, which was adopted by the Georgian Dream last year despite widespread public opposition and international criticism. It aims to register non-governmental and media outlets as organizations representing the interests of a “foreign power” if 20% of their income comes from foreign organizations.

“Batumelebi” Journalist Denied Entry to Public Event at City Hall

On February 12, 2025, a journalist from Batumelebi was denied entry to a public meeting held at Batumi City Hall on the issue of homelessness. According to the outlet, homeless individuals had informed them about the event. However, when the Batumelebi journalist arrived at the entrance of City Hall, security police officers told them they would not be allowed to attend the meeting. The outlet attempted to clarify the reason with the City Hall’s Public Relations Office but received no response.

The Charter of Journalistic Ethics of Georgia stated it has reasonable grounds to believe that the discriminatory treatment of Batumelebi and the restriction of their legal rights are directly connected to the unlawful detention and imprisonment of Mzia Amaghlobeli, and are part of a broader effort to pressure the outlet:

“By refusing to allow a journalist into an open commission meeting in a public building, the security police and Batumi City Hall violated the Batumi Municipal Council’s regulations, which require the creation of working conditions for journalists in public institutions,” the organization’s statement reads.

Mzia Amaghlobeli, co-founder and media manager of Batumelebi and Netgazeti, is the first woman journalist in Georgia considered a prisoner of conscience. She was arrested on January 11, 2025, accused of slapping a law enforcement officer, and faces a prison sentence of 4 to 7 years.