On July 10, 2025, the Prime Minister of “Georgian Dream,” Irakli Kobakhidze, accused Mazia Amaghlobeli, the founder of “Batumelebi/Netgazeti,” of carrying out a “specific assignment” and of “demeaning and insulting” the police.
“This case [Mazia’s case] is very important to them [Members of the European Parliament], and why – because they intended to undermine the law enforcement structures in Georgia, because they know very well that if the law enforcement structures are undermined, the entire state will be undermined, and of course, Mazia Amaghlobeli carried out a specific assignment in this regard. She attempted to undermine the law enforcement structures, to undermine the police,” Kobakhidze said.
Irakli Kobakhidze made a similar statement against Mazia Amaghlobeli, the founder of “Batumelebi/Netgazeti,” on April 16, during a broadcast on “Rustavi 2.”
Mazia Amaghlobeli, the founder of “Batumelebi” and “Netgazeti,” has been in unlawful detention for six months. The journalist was initially arrested on January 11, 2025, for putting up a sticker and was shortly released. Soon after, on January 12, 2025, she was arrested under criminal law for slapping the head of Batumi police, Irakli Dgebuadze.
On July 9, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on Georgia, calling for Mazia Amaghlobeli’s release. Local and international organizations have also demanded her release.
Radio Liberty journalist Giorgi Diasamidze was accused and fined for allegedly blocking the road while covering the February 17, 2025 rally. He was notified by the Ministry of Internal Affairs on February 21. The agency explained that he was fined 5,000 GEL for “artificially blocking the road” near the parliament. The journalist appealed the fine, on the basis of which he was informed that the fine had been lifted.
On June 19, 2025, the Media Development Fund (MDF) received a court order informing them that the Anti-Corruption Bureau had launched an investigation into the organization’s activities. The Bureau is demanding a large amount of information, including the personal data of beneficiaries and partner organizations.
Documents show that one of the reasons for the court order was the publication of joint statements by non-governmental organizations about the state of media freedom and pressure on journalists. MDF has appealed the decision.
MDF is a member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN). EFCSN issued a public statement expressing solidarity with fact-checking platforms in Georgia. The statement notes that Myth Detector (a project by MDF) operates with high standards of transparency and journalistic methodology.
In addition to MDF, the Anti-Corruption Bureau has opened proceedings against three other member organizations of the Media Advocacy Coalition: Transparency International Georgia, Civil Society Foundation, and ISFED. In total, the court has already issued orders concerning seven civil society organizations.
The Media Advocacy Coalition views the adoption of the so-called “Russian laws” as a coordinated attack on civil society organizations. The Coalition is calling on all democratic forces in Georgia—including media outlets, civil society representatives, and individual citizens—to come together in defense of media freedom and civil society.
“Protecting media freedom and civil society is the foundation of democratic liberty,” the statement reads.
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.
On June 18, 2025, Tbilisi City Court Judge Davit Tetraul fined “TV Pirveli” host Vika Bukia 4,000 GEL for a critical comment she posted on social media directed at a Georgian Dream MP.
Vika Bukia, along with five other journalists from critical media outlets, was summoned to Tbilisi City Court on June 12. All six were accused of insulting a member of the ruling Georgian Dream government. Out of the six, the court found four journalists guilty of an administrative offense and fined them. The hearings for the remaining two—Nanuka Zhorzholiani and Vakho Sanaia—were postponed, and no verdict has yet been issued in their cases.
In all six cases, the legal basis for the complaints was a newly enacted article of the Administrative Offenses Code—Article 173¹⁶(e). This article introduces liability for actions such as verbal insult, offensive language, degrading treatment, or other forms of offensive conduct directed at political officials, public servants, or equivalent positions, committed during or in connection with their official duties. Penalties include a fine ranging from 1,500 to 4,000 GEL or up to 45 days of detention.
According to the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, social media posts that do not contain threats posing a real risk and are directed at politicians—who are expected to have a high tolerance for criticism—are protected under freedom of expression. “Any court interpretation contradicting this standard would set a precedent for mass censorship,” the organization said in a statement.
On June 21, 2025, a court hearing was held at Tbilisi City Court in the case of activist Nino Datashvili, related to a criminal investigation stemming from an incident that took place at the court building on May 9 of this year.
Judge Eka Barbakadze prohibited photo and audio recording during the session without providing any explanation or justification. Only video cameras were allowed to be present in the courtroom.
“At the start of the hearing, Barbakadze said she had received media requests for permission to record video, take photos, and make audio recordings, but she only granted permission for video recording and gave no explanation for denying photo and audio access,” reported the news outlet Publika.
This is not the first instance of media restrictions in courtrooms. Just a few days earlier, Tbilisi City Court Judge Giorgi Arevadze also did not allow the media to operate freely.
On June 23, 2023, in Tbilisi, poet and activist Zviad Ratiani was arrested on charges of assaulting a police officer. The arrest was witnessed by Nino Kodalashvili, a journalist from the TV company Kavkasia, who filmed the arrest using her personal mobile phone—something law enforcement officers also noticed.
Later, the police attempted to take Nino Kodalashvili to the police station for questioning as a witness and to examine her personal mobile phone. The director of Kavkasia, Nino Jangirashvili, was also present at the scene. She refused to allow the police to take the journalist or access her phone without following the appropriate legal procedures (such as an official notice). According to Jangirashvili, other activists also arrived at the location. As a result of the protest, the police reversed their decision to take the journalist in.
The interaction between the police and the journalists was streamed live on social media.
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.
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.
Formula TV journalist Anamaria Gelitashvili was fined 5,000 GEL for “artificially blocking the road” on Rustaveli Avenue while performing her professional duties. The Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) informed her of the fine on June 17, 2025. She is being accused of obstructing the road during the protest held on May 6.
This is the second fine issued to Anamaria Gelitashvili by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The first fine has already been appealed, and the journalist intends to appeal the second one as well. She claims that in both cases she was carrying out her journalistic duties, and there is video evidence to support this.
Since November 28, 2024, according to publicly available information, 37 administrative fines have been issued against media representatives. The majority of these cases are still under review. So far, the court has found two journalists in violation of the law and ordered them to pay fines.
