Laws Restricting Media Freedom

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.

“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.

Repressive legislative amendments restricting the freedom of assembly

On December 12, 2025, “Georgian Dream” adopted another repressive legislative amendment restricting the freedom of assembly, which was considered under an expedited procedure within three days. Since December 2024, “Georgian Dream” has amended the legislation regulating assemblies and demonstrations five times. Each time, the amendments have become increasingly repressive, aiming both to punish demonstrators and to intimidate them preventively.

The legislative changes were introduced into the Law of Georgia “On Assemblies and Demonstrations” and the Code of Administrative Offenses. The amendments significantly strengthen the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ control over assemblies and demonstrations. Under the new rules, organizers are obliged to notify the Ministry of Internal Affairs in advance not only when the action will block transport routes but also when the assembly will take place on pedestrian areas. This obligation applies even to spontaneous gatherings, and the notification must be addressed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs rather than the municipality. In addition, the Ministry is authorized to issue binding instructions regarding changes to the location, time, or route of the demonstration.

When a pedestrian area is blocked en masse, the Ministry of Internal Affairs is authorized to give participants a 15-minute deadline to vacate the area, after which the assembly may be declared unlawful and dispersed. Compliance with this requirement within the given timeframe does not exempt participants from legal liability. Violations are punishable by administrative detention of up to 15 days (up to 20 days for organizers), and repeated violations may result in criminal liability.

The Social Justice Center assesses these legislative amendments as a new stage in the criminalization of the freedom of assembly. According to the organization, restricting gatherings on sidewalks and pedestrian areas constitutes an unconstitutional and unjustified limitation on the right to peaceful assembly. They also state that the goal of the adopted amendments is the effective prohibition of all assemblies.

The legislative changes adopted by “Georgian Dream” have significantly restricted the freedom of assembly and expression for both citizens and journalists. On multiple occasions, journalists have been detained under repressive legislation, including in cases where they were performing their professional duties.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau is requesting information about grants from the publication “Indigo”

On November 11, 2025, the publication “Indigo” released a statement from which it became clear that the Anti-Corruption Bureau had initiated proceedings against them based on the so-called Law on Grants adopted by “Georgian Dream.” “Since our entire activity is based on open communication and only your trust, we want you to know this news as well. Obviously, we continue and serve the mission that created us—we continue working for free speech and expression, for free thoughts and ideas,” the publication writes.

The amendments to the “Law on Grants” are one of the repressive changes adopted by the “Georgian Dream” parliament in recent months to restrict the media. The law came into force in April. These amendments prohibited the issuance of foreign grants without the permission of the government. A grant received without consent leads to a fine equal to double the amount of the grant received.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau carries out the monitoring of the issuance and receipt of grants. This agency has already initiated proceedings against several media outlets based on this law, including: “Project 64,” the investigative media “iFact,” the publication “Mountain News,” GMC, which manages the publications “Realpolitika” and “Flangvis Detector” (Waste Detector), Georgian Media Group, and also the organization working on media rights, the “Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics.”

In addition to media outlets, the Anti-Corruption Bureau is requesting information about grants from civil and non-governmental organizations as well; in total, the agency’s letter has been received by more than 60 organizations, including member organizations of the “Media Advocacy Coalition.”

“Georgian Dream” adopted laws restricting independent media

The “Georgian Dream” parliament adopted new, restrictive laws against independent and critical media through an accelerated procedure. These are the “Foreign Agents Registration Act” [FARA] and amendments to the “Law on Broadcasting” and the “Law on Grants.” These laws were adopted against a background of repression and violence taking place against activists and the media.

What the Restrictive Laws Entail:

Amendment to the Law “On Grants”

On April 16, 2025, “Georgian Dream” adopted the amendment to the “Law on Grants” in the third reading. According to the amendments:

The grant provider (donor) must apply to the Government of Georgia to receive consent for the issuance of a grant;
The grant recipient, if receiving a grant without consent, will be fined double the amount of the grant;
The Anti-Corruption Bureau is granted additional powers, such as—the right to request a financial report from a person, as well as the right to question a physical person;
The Anti-Corruption Bureau will be able to request “special category personal data” from public institutions, physical persons, and legal entities.

Non-governmental organizations responded to the amendment to the “Law on Grants” with a joint statement. “This law, by its essence and expected result, is an act of persecution against the people and aims to leave citizens face-to-face with the ruling party’s punitive system and prohibit international society’s support for them,” states the NGO declaration.

“Foreign Agents Registration Act” [FARA]

On April 1, 2025, the “Georgian Dream” parliament approved the “Foreign Agents Registration Act” [FARA]. The new law introduces the term “agent of a foreign principal.” According to the law’s definition, this may include an employee of an information service who “acts in Georgia for the benefit or interest of a foreign principal.” According to the law’s requirement, the registration application must be submitted to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which the law grants broad authority, including the right to request any information “based on national security and public interests.” Unlike other laws restricting media adopted by the “Georgian Dream” parliament, violation of FARA’s requirements will lead to both financial sanctions and up to five years of imprisonment. The adoption of FARA was assessed as a law restricting independent civil organizations and the media. “The ‘Georgian Dream,’ at first glance, appears to want to adopt the seemingly inappropriate FARA for controlling public and media organizations due to the strict criminal legal mechanisms provided for in the law and the selective and politically motivated application of the law at the individual level. Representatives of the ruling team openly point this out, including Irakli Kobakhidze, Shalva Papuashvili, and Mamuka Mdinaradze. In contrast to the American reality, the ruling team envisions and imagines that it will use the instrumentalization of the American-named law to damage civil society, without the firmly established guarantees of protecting independent courts and freedom of expression and association in Georgia,” states the declaration of the Social Justice Center.

Amendments to the Law “On Broadcasting”

On the very day FARA was adopted, April 1, 2025, “Georgian Dream” adopted amendments to the “Law on Broadcasting.” According to the amendment, foreign funding of broadcasters was completely prohibited, and the authority of the regulatory body, the National Communications Commission, was significantly increased, specifically bringing journalists’ professional activities into the sphere of regulation. According to the amendments introduced to the law, a broadcaster is prohibited from receiving direct or indirect funding and a foreign force is prohibited from purchasing services from a broadcaster, 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. According to the law, a foreign force is considered: a) a subject constituting a system of authority of a foreign state; b) a physical person who is not a citizen of Georgia; c) a legal entity that is not founded under the legislation of Georgia; d) an organizational unit or other type of association of persons that is founded under the law of a foreign state and/or international law. The amendment also introduces detailed regulations regarding television and radio broadcasting standards, including due accuracy of fact and the right of reply. Additionally, regulations are added concerning the fairness and impartiality of fact, the inviolability of private life, the obtaining and transmission of information using covert methods, the coverage of armed conflict, accidents and other emergency situations, and specific issues regarding the protection of minors.

“Transparency International Georgia” declares that these laws threaten the existence of critically-minded independent media.

Along with these laws, since 2024, the Law “On Transparency of Foreign Influence,” also known as the “Russian Law,” has been in effect in Georgia, which “Georgian Dream” adopted last year despite widespread public opposition and international criticism, and which aims to register non-governmental and media organizations whose income exceeds 20% from foreign organizations as organizations carrying out the interests of a “foreign force.”

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.”

“Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics” will not be able to monitor election-related coverage this year

The Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics announced that, for the first time since 2012, it will not be able to monitor how media outlets cover election-related issues during the election period. In its statement, the Charter cited repressive legislation adopted by Georgian Dream as the reason.

Amid pro-European protest rallies, Georgian Dream passed several laws which, according to assessments by local and international organizations, significantly restrict independent media organizations.

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.