Parliament of Georgia

Legislative Amendments Related to Non-Recognition of the Constitutional Order

During the second reading of the “Grants Law” at the Legal Affairs Committee of the Georgian Dream parliamentary faction, it was revealed that the Criminal Code will include provisions related to non-recognition of the authorities. The planned amendments pose a threat to freedom of expression and media activity.

According to the initiative:

In Article 53 of the Criminal Code (General Principles for Sentencing), committing a crime motivated by non-recognition of Georgia’s constitutional order or constitutional bodies is defined as an aggravating circumstance.
A new Article 316ᵖʳⁱᵐᵃ is being added to the Code—“Extremism Against Georgia’s Constitutional Order.” The article establishes liability for systematic and public calls for mass violations of the law, mass disobedience toward state authorities, or the creation of alternative bodies. Sanctions include up to 3 years of imprisonment, fines, or community service. For legal entities, sanctions may include liquidation and/or fines.
The amendments are also planned for the Code of Administrative Offenses, where committing an offense motivated by non-recognition of the Constitution or constitutional bodies will be considered an aggravating circumstance. According to clarifications, this approach may be applied to a broad range of actions.

These amendments represent a continuation of a series of repressive laws initiated by Georgian Dream over the past two years, which, according to local and international experts, affect, among other things, media freedom.

“Georgian Dream” Announces New Repressive Legislative Amendments

On 28 January, following a meeting of the parliamentary majority of Georgian Dream, it was announced that the party intends to initiate a new legislative package during the spring session. The package will include amendments to the Law on Grants, the Criminal Code, the Code of Administrative Offences, and the Law on Political Associations of Citizens.

Based on information presented at a public briefing, the proposed amendments aim to strengthen state control over foreign funding and would significantly restrict the activities of civil society, political actors, media organizations, and the business sector.

Amendments to the Law on Grants

The proposed amendments substantially broaden the definition of a grant. Nearly any monetary or in-kind resource that is used, or may be used, to influence Georgia’s domestic politics, state institutions, or public processes would fall under this definition, including activities linked to foreign political interests or relationships. Receiving such grants would require prior approval from the Government of Georgia.

The draft law also introduces a category of foreign legal entities whose activities are deemed to involve issues related to Georgia. These entities, including branches and representative offices of non-resident organizations, would be permitted to receive funding only with prior government consent. Receiving grants without approval would trigger criminal liability for legal entities and administrative fines for branches and representative offices amounting to twice the value of the grant.

The amendments also cover technical assistance: the provision of knowledge, expertise, consulting, or technology – whether paid or unpaid – financed from foreign sources would be treated as a grant and subject to government approval. This regulation would also apply to the engagement of foreign experts.

In addition, the changes would apply retroactively to grants already received but not yet used. Grant recipients would be required to seek government approval within one month; until approval is granted, the use of such grants would be prohibited, and failure to comply would result in criminal liability.

Amendments to the Criminal Code

The scope of criminal liability is significantly expanded. A new criminal offence is introduced for violations of the Law on Grants, including unlawful cooperation with foreign organizations or foreign individuals. Violations would be punishable by a fine, community service, or imprisonment of up to six years.

The offence of money laundering is further aggravated where the conduct is linked to influencing political issues related to Georgia, carrying a penalty of nine to twelve years’ imprisonment.

Criminal liability is also introduced for political party leaders in cases involving the receipt of foreign funding, as well as for so-called external lobbying, punishable by imprisonment of up to six years or community service.

Amendments to the Law on Political Associations of Citizens

Political party membership would be prohibited for eight years for individuals employed by organizations whose annual income includes more than 20% foreign funding. The draft law defines both “foreign power” and “organizations carrying foreign interests,” including non-profit organizations and media outlets whose non-commercial income exceeds 20% from foreign sources. As a result, a large number of individuals employed in civil society and the media would effectively be excluded from political party membership.

The State Audit Office would be granted authority to monitor the financial activities of political party members, including access to the accounts of ordinary members. The amendments would also apply to individuals deemed by the authorities to have declared political objectives, regardless of formal party affiliation, potentially bringing a wide range of civil activists under these regulations.

Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences

A new administrative offence is introduced for business entities engaging in public political activities unrelated to their core commercial activities. Violations would result in fines of GEL 20,000, increasing to GEL 40,000 in cases of repeated offences. The definition of political activity under the draft law is broad and may encompass virtually any form of civic action or criticism of public authorities, creating a risk that lawful civic engagement could be subject to legal restrictions.

Overall, the broad and vague expansion of the concept of a grant, the requirement for prior government approval, the tightening of criminal and administrative sanctions, and the application of these rules to broadly defined groups create a legal framework that grants the state wide discretion. These changes would significantly restrict civic space and undermine freedom of expression, association, political participation, and civic engagement, in tension with constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.

The proposed legislation continues a broader pattern of restrictive laws introduced by Georgian Dream over the past two years, which have been widely criticized by local and international experts as measures targeting media freedom, civil society, and activism.

Changes to the One-Time Special Accreditation Procedure in Parliament and Its Impact on Media Activity

From January 1, 2026, a new rule for issuing one-time special accreditation came into effect, according to which the head of the apparatus makes a decision on granting special accreditation no later than 5 working days from the submission of the application. The one-time special accreditation is a mechanism that allows journalists who do not hold parliamentary accreditation to enter the Parliament of Georgia and carry out their professional activities for a specific purpose.

Considering the operational nature of media work, this deadline may create practical difficulties for journalists in terms of timely coverage of ongoing events in Parliament. The issue gains additional significance in the context where the current regulations already set quantitative limits on accredited parliamentary journalists based on the type of media outlet. For example, for online publications, the maximum number of parliamentary accreditations is set at 4 journalists. This change negatively affects the efficiency of media work and creates additional barriers to accessing information in Parliament.

From the perspective of “Georgian Dream,” the imposition of additional restrictions on journalists in the Parliament building is related to the approval of the accreditation rules for media in the Parliament of Georgia on February 6, 2023. Among other provisions, the accreditation rules stipulate that video and photo recording of sessions is allowed only with the permission of the session chairperson, a journalist must stop an interview if the respondent refuses, and the head of the apparatus has the authority to restrict the access, movement, or placement of equipment of accredited journalists based on the “specificity of the event” or “security regime.” These criteria are not specified in the document, which creates a risk of broad discretion. Violations of the rules may result in suspension of accreditation for one to six months.

These regulations have been criticized by the Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics, which assesses that such norms negatively affect the ability to obtain and provide information to the public. Practice has shown that the media accreditation rules have been repeatedly used in the context of restricting the activities of independent journalists.

New legislative changes further restrict the freedom of assembly and expression

On October 16, “Georgian Dream” passed another set of legislative changes in an accelerated procedure, within two days, which further tighten sanctions against citizens participating in protest demonstrations and significantly restrict the freedom of assembly and expression. Amendments have been introduced to both the Criminal Code of Georgia and the Code of Administrative Offenses.

According to the amendments, administrative detention of up to 15 days is now imposed without a fine for wearing masks at protests, possessing tear gas, or blocking roads. Furthermore, judges will no longer have the authority to impose fines as an administrative penalty in cases of administrative offenses, and demonstrators may face administrative detention of up to 60 days if:

Firearms, flammable substances, cold weapons, or pyrotechnics are found at the protest;
The police decide to disperse the assembly and the demonstrator does not comply.

Additionally, the changes also affected the Criminal Code, according to which the repeated commission of such actions will result in criminal liability and imprisonment of up to one year, and in each subsequent instance, up to two years.

Moreover, the amendments introduced criminal liability for repeated offenses against law enforcement officers. Specifically, if a citizen verbally insults a police officer multiple times or refuses to comply with their lawful order, this action will be punishable by imprisonment of up to one year. In cases of repetition, the punishment is stricter and may result in imprisonment of up to two years.

Non-governmental organizations have sharply criticized these changes, stating that they pose a threat to the fundamental principles of democracy. According to them, the new regulations not only restrict the right to peaceful protest but also create an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship in society, where citizens may be punished merely for expressing their opinions.

These changes are a continuation of the recent trend of repressive legislation adopted by “Georgian Dream.”

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.

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.

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.