Statements

Executive Summary

This document reviews the package of legislative amendments initiated in Parliament in January 2026 by the “Georgian Dream” faction, which envisages the introduction of additional restrictions on civil and political rights. In the assessment of ISFED, the proposed amendments contradict the standards of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and international treaties, and constitute yet another step toward the consolidation of authoritarian governance and repression in the country.

Key Amendments and Associated Risks:

1. Expansion and Criminalization of the Concept of a Grant:

• The definition of a “grant” is substantially broadened, enabling the state to subject to strict control any type of material or in-kind assistance (including the sharing of expertise) provided by a foreign citizen, legal entity, or state.
• The mechanism requiring prior government consent for the use of grants will apply retroactively to previously awarded grants.
• Violation of the established rules will also entail criminal liability.

2. Expansion of the Concept of Political Activity:

• The term “declared electoral goal” is replaced with the vague term “party-political goal.” This change makes it possible to equate any active citizen, civil society organization, or movement with a political party and subject them to repressive sanctions.
• Appealing a decision will not suspend its effect, thereby violating the right to an effective remedy.

3. Deprivation of Political Rights:

• An eight-year ban on membership in a political party is introduced for individuals who have received income through employment relations with organizations deemed to be “pursuing the interests of a foreign power.”
• This provision directly contradicts the Constitution of Georgia and constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the passive electoral right.

4. Restrictions on Freedom of Speech and Expression:

• Entrepreneurial legal entities are prohibited from engaging in any “political activity,” effectively excluding them from public discourse.
• A new article on “extremism” is added to the Criminal Code, formulated so vaguely that it can be used against any critic of the government.

---

 

I. Introduction

On January 21, 2026, the “Georgian Dream” faction submitted to Parliament a package of draft laws envisaging the introduction of additional restrictions on civil and political rights. Amendments are proposed to the Laws of Georgia “On Grants,” “On Political Associations of Citizens,” the Criminal Code, the Code of Administrative Offenses, and other related legislative acts. On February 18, Parliament adopted the draft laws in the second reading, and their core principles are unlikely to change before the third reading.

The changes envisaged by the draft laws can be conditionally divided into three parts: one set of regulations imposes additional restrictions on the use of foreign funds by significantly expanding the definition of a grant and tightening sanctions; the second expands the concepts of participation and activity in politics and introduces additional restrictions on party membership; the third provides for restrictions on freedom of speech and expression for natural persons and entrepreneurial legal entities. In the assessment of the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), almost all of the above changes contradict the standards of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and international treaties and represent another step toward the consolidation of authoritarian governance and repression. This document describes and assesses the key proposed amendments.

 

II. Description and Assessment of the Main Amendments

1. Additional Restrictions on the Use of Foreign Financial Sources: Expansion of Grant Regulation and Tightening of Sanctions

Within the legislative package, amendments are introduced to the Law of Georgia “On Grants,” substantially altering and worsening the existing regulation of a number of issues. According to the explanatory note of the author of the draft law - the “Georgian Dream” faction - the new legislative package was submitted “with the aim of further protecting and strengthening the sovereignty of Georgia.” At the same time, it asserts, as if already established, that any foreign funding poses a risk of being used against Georgia’s sovereignty. ISFED believes that this reasoning lacks proper substantiation, as it is not based on empirical evidence and ignores the positive role that such grants have played in the country’s development. It also demonizes partner organizations and donors and aims to stigmatize civil society activities instead of objectively assessing real risks.

 

1.1. Expansion of the Definition of a Grant and Tightening of Sanctions

The amendments substantially expand the definition of a grant. In particular, under the draft law, a grant will also include funds transferred in monetary or in-kind form by a citizen of another state or a legal entity of another state to a citizen of Georgia or a person with the right of residence in Georgia, as well as to a legal entity of another state whose activities substantially involve issues related to Georgia, if such funds are intended, or may be intended, for activities carried out or to be carried out with the belief or intention of influencing the Government of Georgia, state institutions, or any segment of society, and which are aimed at shaping, implementing, or changing Georgia’s domestic or foreign policy, or for activities arising from the political or public interests, approaches, or relations of a foreign government or foreign political party.

Under the new regulation, a grant will also include funds transferred in monetary or in-kind form, in exchange for which the recipient provides technical assistance to the donor in the form of sharing technologies, specialized knowledge, skills, expertise, services, and/or other types of assistance. Gratuitous technical assistance provided in such forms will also be considered a grant, as well as funds transferred in monetary or in-kind form by a legal entity of another state to its representative office, branch, or division registered in Georgia (except where funds are transferred for business purposes).

In the assessment of ISFED, these changes unjustifiably broaden the concept of a grant and effectively make the norm unforeseeable, which, under conditions of biased or bad-faith interpretation, eliminates any distinction between a grant and other types of services and/or assistance. This enables state bodies to arbitrarily subject any type of material or non-material assistance, professional cooperation, or knowledge-sharing provided by foreign citizens, legal entities, or states to the strict regulations established for grants. Such a broad and vague definition appears intended to control the activities of natural and legal persons and restrict their financial independence.

Under the amendments, violation of the requirements established by the Law of Georgia “On Grants” will entail criminal liability. ISFED considers that imposing such a sanction contradicts the principle of criminal liability as a measure of last resort (ultima ratio). Moreover, the presence of blanket norms creates a risk of broad discretion, whose abusive use may produce a chilling effect.

According to the amendments, monitoring of grants issued and received without consent will be carried out by the State Audit Office. If, during monitoring, the State Audit Office detects conduct containing signs of a criminal offense, it will be obliged to forward all relevant materials to the competent investigative body as determined by Georgian legislation, which will then conduct the investigation.

 

1.2. Retroactive Application of the Government Consent Mechanism for Grants

According to the proposed amendments, if a person covered by the law received a grant prior to the entry into force of the Law “On Grants” or in violation of legislation and has not used it, or received a grant that previously did not require government consent, that person must, within one month of the law’s entry into force, apply to the Government for consent to use the grant. Use of the grant prior to the Government’s decision is prohibited and will entail criminal liability.

ISFED considers the retroactive effect of the draft law particularly alarming, as the state extends new liabilities and bureaucratic barriers to relationships that arose legitimately before the law’s entry into force. This creates a dangerous precedent whereby past lawful conduct may become grounds for criminal prosecution, disregarding standards of legal certainty. Furthermore, these changes constitute a deliberate mechanism for the financial paralysis of the civil sector. Prohibiting the use of already-received grants and criminalizing such use will force many organizations into self-liquidation, as they will be unable to fulfill financial obligations to employees, contractors, and donors.

For all the above reasons, the proposed legislative package goes beyond the scope of legal regulation and serves further repression.

 

1.3. Application of the Requirements to Foreign Legal Entities

Under the proposed amendments, the consent of the Government of Georgia or an authorized person/body designated by it will also be required for issuing a grant to a legal entity of another state if its activities “substantially involve issues related to Georgia.”

ISFED considers this requirement problematic from the perspective of international law, as a state’s jurisdiction is generally limited to its territorial boundaries. The provision attempts to impose rules of conduct and bureaucratic obligations on entities registered under foreign law, physically located in another state, and not subject to Georgia’s jurisdiction, thus constituting an attempt to establish extraterritorial control. Moreover, the phrase “activities substantially involve issues related to Georgia” is vague and undermines foreseeability.

 

 

2. Expansion of the Concepts of Participation and Activity in Politics, Additional Restrictions on Party Membership, and Tightening of Sanctions

The planned amendments to the Organic Law of Georgia “On Political Associations of Citizens” fundamentally change the essence of the regulation of political activity in Georgia. The amendments expand state interference not only in the activities of political parties, but also in the activities of individuals, civil society organizations, and unregistered social movements, reduce the space for political pluralism, and create real risks of criminal prosecution for peaceful political and civic activity. The presented package of amendments restricts such civil and political rights and freedoms as freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, freedom of political parties, electoral rights, and the right to hold public office. At the same time, it violates the principles of proportionality, legality, and effective remedy. This approach contradicts the fundamental principles of human rights defined by the Constitution of Georgia and by international treaties and agreements signed by the state. It creates a “chilling effect” and risks of politically motivated decisions and criminal prosecution. Taken together, the amendments form a precondition for the systemic dismantling of political pluralism, which does not meet the minimum standards of a democratic state.

 

2.1. Replacement of the “Electoral Goal” with a “Party-Political Goal.”

The draft amendments abolish the clear criterion according to which a person was considered to have an electoral goal only if they publicly declared the intention to come to power through participation in elections. Replacing the term “electoral goal” with “party-political goal” radically expands the scope of regulation. Whereas previously legal consequences were linked to specific and objectively identifiable conduct - the public declaration of the intention to come to power through participation in elections - the new definition covers any subject that “is not registered as a political party but, by the content of its activities and public actions, including participation in the formation and implementation of the political will of citizens, essentially resembles a political party.” In the opinion of ISFED, this formulation, under conditions where it does not include the purpose of participation in elections - which is essential for party-political activity - is extremely vague, does not meet the requirements of legal certainty and foreseeability, and creates risks of gross violations of the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and international legal instruments.

Adoption of the presented package of amendments creates the precondition, under conditions of arbitrary interpretation, for civil society organizations, trade unions, unregistered social movements, or active citizens to be equated with political parties, including in terms of financial reporting obligations and criminal liability. According to the initiative, the provision stating that the restrictions established by law may not be applied against civic activity will be removed from the Organic Law “On Political Associations of Citizens.” At the same time, the amendments still provide that restrictions may not be applied against freedom of expression and pre-election campaigning. Nevertheless, despite this, a precedent of adopting a politicized decision through arbitrary interpretation of the law already exists in Georgia: on 24 September 2024, under the old version of the law, the Anti-Corruption Bureau recognized the non-governmental organization Transparency International Georgia, its Executive Director Eka Gigauri, as well as the organization “Vote for Europe,” its Executive Director Khatuna Lagazidze and co-founders, as persons with a declared electoral goal. ISFED assessed this decision of the Anti-Corruption Bureau as unlawful, since it did not comply with the definition of a person with a declared electoral goal under the Organic Law of Georgia “On Political Associations of Citizens.” In addition, according to the organization, such an interpretation of the law created a dangerous precedent for its use to disproportionately restrict freedom of speech and expression. Subsequently, following a statement by the Prime Minister of Georgia, the Head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau revoked the decision.

The latest legislative amendments prepared by Georgian Dream create grounds for disproportionate and arbitrary interference with the freedoms of opinion, information, mass media, and the Internet guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution of Georgia, as well as with the freedoms of assembly and association guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22. According to the European Convention on Human Rights, the freedoms of expression and association protected by Articles 10 and 11 may be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights of others. Moreover, under Article 18 of the Convention, restrictions permitted under the Convention on the above freedoms shall be applied only for the purposes for which they have been prescribed. The same spirit is reflected in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, whose Articles 19, 21, and 22 protect the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association with others. The right of every person to express their opinion freely includes the freedom, regardless of frontiers, to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of their choice.

The European Court of Human Rights consistently indicates that interference with the rights guaranteed by Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention is permissible only if the restriction is “prescribed by law,” which includes the precision of the norm, foreseeability, necessity, proportionality, and protection against arbitrariness. In the case “The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom,” the Court explained that a norm cannot be regarded as “law” unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen, if necessary with appropriate advice, to foresee, to a degree reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences that a given action may entail. Similarly, in the case “Maestri v. Italy,” the Court noted that the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any discretion conferred on the authorities that involves interference with human rights. In the case “Malone v. the United Kingdom,” the Court also emphasized the importance of defining with “reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities. To that extent, the minimum degree of legal protection to which citizens are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society is lacking.”

The concept of “participation in the formation of the political will of citizens” does not contain any objective limit and, in practice, may extend to civic activity, media commentary, expression of opinions on social networks, etc. Granting the State Audit Office the authority to determine the relevant status and to apply measures such as questioning, monitoring, and initiating interrogation in court creates risks of their use for repressive purposes. According to international standards, supervisory bodies must operate under a strictly defined mandate and with strong guarantees of political neutrality, which in this case are not adequately ensured. In addition, the fact that appealing the decision does not suspend its effect contradicts the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. When an administrative decision immediately restricts fundamental rights, it must be subject to strict judicial control. In accordance with the OSCE Copenhagen Document, everyone must have an effective remedy against administrative decisions in order to ensure respect for fundamental rights. Particularly problematic is the fact that violation of declaration rules by subjects with a party-political goal will be punishable under criminal law, which creates a strong “chilling effect.” This, in turn, affects the actual exercise of freedom of expression, regardless of how often it will be applied in practice.

The presented legislative amendments create an additional existential challenge for civil society organizations, which also contradicts the obligations assumed by the state under the OSCE Copenhagen Document. Under this document, Georgia must ensure that individuals have the right to exercise freedom of association, including to form and participate effectively in non-governmental organizations that seek to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. In accordance with the OSCE Copenhagen Document, the state must “allow members of such groups and organizations to have unhindered access to and communication with similar bodies within and outside their countries and with international organizations, to engage in exchanges, contacts and co-operation with such groups and organizations and to solicit, receive and utilize for the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms voluntary financial contributions from national and international sources as provided for by law.”

 

2.2. Eight-Year Ban on Party Membership for Certain Citizens

Under the proposed legislative amendments, membership in a political party will be prohibited for a period of 8 years for those citizens of Georgia who have received income under an employment contract from an “organization carrying out the interests of a foreign power.” According to the Law of Georgia “On Transparency of Foreign Influence,” adopted on 28 May 2024 by Georgian Dream, an “an organisation pursuing the interests of a foreign power” is defined as a non-entrepreneurial (non-commercial) legal entity (except for an organization established by an administrative body, a national sports federation of Georgia, and a blood institution provided for by the Law of Georgia “On the Quality and Safety of Human Blood and Its Components”) whose total income during a calendar year is more than 20% derived from a foreign power. In addition, broadcasters defined by the Law of Georgia “On Broadcasting,” as well as legal entities that individually or jointly own print media operating in Georgia or own/use an Internet domain and/or Internet hosting intended for an Internet outlet disseminating mass information in the state language of Georgia, whose total non-commercial income during a calendar year is also more than 20% derived from a foreign power, are considered “an organisation pursuing the interests of a foreign power.” It should be noted that prior to initiating the latest legislative amendments, Georgian Dream amended the Election Code of Georgia and prohibited political parties from nominating non-member candidates and placing them on party lists. As a result, if the proposed amendments are adopted, participation in parliamentary elections in Georgia will be impossible without party membership, since the legislation of the country, in violation of international standards, does not allow the nomination of independent candidates to the highest representative body. Thus, restriction of party membership for 8 years automatically means deprivation of passive electoral rights for the same period.

ISFED considers that the presented initiative contradicts the fundamental human rights and freedoms defined in Chapter II of the Constitution of Georgia. Among these, Article 22 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of association. Article 23 also protects the freedom of political parties, according to which citizens of Georgia have the right, in accordance with the organic law, to establish a political party and participate in its activities. At the same time, under Article 25 of the Constitution, every citizen of Georgia has the right to hold any public office if they meet the requirements established by law. For example, a citizen of Georgia with electoral rights who has reached the age of 25, has lived in Georgia for at least 10 years, and has not been sentenced to imprisonment by a court may be elected as a Member of Parliament. According to the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, in addition to age, citizenship, and residency requirements, legislation may provide for restrictions on electoral rights for certain persons, but only in compliance with the principle of proportionality. Moreover, deprivation of political rights must be based solely on a relevant court decision. The initiative of Georgian Dream goes beyond the permissible limits of restricting passive electoral rights and constitutes a fully unconstitutional amendment.

The initiative also contradicts Georgia’s obligations under international treaties and exceeds the limits permitted by international standards for restricting freedom of association. Under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, any restriction on the rights of political parties must be necessary in a democratic society and proportionate. These legal norms allow states to impose restrictions on the freedom of association of members of the police, armed forces, and public servants. Some states also restrict the partisan political activities of judges in order to maintain public confidence in their impartiality and independence. Any deviation beyond these categories requires clearly justified objective grounds. According to the standards of the Venice Commission and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), the need for restrictions must be carefully weighed; given the fundamental role of political parties in the democratic process, prohibitive measures must be applied narrowly and must never eliminate the right entirely or impair its essence. As the European Court of Human Rights noted in the case “Gorzelik and Others v. Poland,” exceptions to the rule of freedom of association must be construed strictly, and only convincing and compelling reasons can justify restrictions on this freedom.

ISFED believes that the effective deprivation of passive electoral rights due to an employment relationship with a foreign-funded organization does not pursue a legitimate aim and fails to meet the requirements of proportionality and individual assessment. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasized the importance of electoral rights protected by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (both active and passive) for effective democracy and, consequently, their fundamental importance within the Convention system. In the case “Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey,” the Court reiterated that the rights guaranteed by this provision are crucial for establishing and maintaining the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law. In the case “Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium,” the Court held that free elections are the foundation of any democracy and that conditions imposed on electoral rights must not restrict the right to such an extent as to impair its very essence; they must pursue a legitimate aim, and the means employed must be proportionate. In the case “Adamsons v. Latvia,” the Court stressed that any restriction on electoral rights must be based on an individualized assessment of each case, allowing consideration of the specific conduct of the person concerned. In the case “Hirst v. the United Kingdom,” the Court stated that “any conditions imposed must not thwart the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature - in other words, they must reflect, or not run counter to, the concern to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of an electoral procedure aimed at identifying the will of the people through universal suffrage.” Accordingly, “exclusion of any groups or categories of the general population must accordingly be reconcilable with the underlying purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see “Aziz v. Cyprus”).”

The OSCE Copenhagen Document attaches particular importance to political pluralism and a multi-party system as essential elements of a democratic society. It obliges the state to ensure the right of individuals to establish political parties and other political organizations, to join them, or to leave them according to their own will. Political parties and organizations must enjoy equality before the law and must not be subjected to discrimination by the authorities.

 

2.3. Full Criminalization of Receiving Foreign Funding by a Political Party or a Subject with a Party-Political Goal

The planned amendment to Article 26 of the Organic Law “On Political Associations of Citizens” provides that receipt of any foreign funds by a political party or a subject with a party-political goal will entail criminal liability for the leading official. In addition, receipt of a prohibited donation by a subject with a declared party-political goal, failure to submit a declaration, or failure to remedy a deficiency within the prescribed period will result in criminal liability for the subject with such status. Within the same package of amendments, the Criminal Code of Georgia is supplemented with an article according to which, in the event of receipt of any type of foreign donation by a political party, the person holding a leadership position shall be punished by a fine, community service for a term of 300 to 500 hours, or imprisonment for up to six years.

In the opinion of ISFED, the state has the right to protect democratic order and national security; however, any restriction and sanction must meet the criteria of necessity and proportionality. According to the standards of the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, sanctions imposed on political parties that violate relevant laws and regulations must always be objective, effective, and proportionate to the specific violation. In the field of financing, priority should be given to administrative and financial sanctions. Criminal liability should be considered an exceptional measure and applied only when less severe legal mechanisms are ineffective. It should be noted that the presented amendments are not aimed at achieving a necessary legitimate objective but rather constitute yet another legislative basis for implementing a repressive policy.

 

3. Restriction of Freedom of Speech and Expression

3.1. Prohibition on Engaging in Political Activity for Entrepreneurial Legal Entities

The submitted package of draft laws also provides for amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses of Georgia, according to which the public engagement by an entrepreneurial legal entity in political activity that is not related to its principal business activity shall result in a fine of 20,000 GEL. Repetition of the same act, committed on behalf of or through (using) the same legal entity by a person who has already been subjected to an administrative sanction for such an offense and/or by a responsible person of that legal entity, shall entail criminal liability. Under the amendments to the Criminal Code, such an act shall be punishable by a fine, community service for a term of 120 to 200 hours, or imprisonment for up to three years; the same act committed repeatedly shall be punishable by a fine, community service for a term of 200 to 300 hours, or imprisonment for up to four years. A legal entity shall be punished for an act предусмотренный by this article by a fine or liquidation and a fine.

For the purposes of this law, political activity shall be understood as an activity carried out or to be carried out with the aim of influencing the Government of Georgia, state institutions, or any segment of society, which is directed toward the formulation, implementation, or modification of the domestic or foreign policy of Georgia.

In the opinion of ISFED, such a regulation will completely exclude entrepreneurial legal entities from public political discourse and allow the state to arbitrarily restrict the political expression of individuals employed in the sector. Given that political activity is defined so broadly and unpredictably, this regulation disproportionately restricts the right recognized by human rights law, including the European Convention on Human Rights - namely, the right to freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression occupies a special place in the system of human rights and freedoms, as it determines the possibility of enjoying other rights and freedoms. Freedom of expression is one of the essential preconditions for the existence of a democratic society and its full development. The unhindered dissemination of opinions and information ensures pluralism of views, promotes public and informed discussion on issues important to society, and enables the participation of each member of society in public life. According to the interpretation of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, “a free society consists of free individuals who live in a free informational space, think freely, have independent views, and participate in democratic processes. The Constitution protects the process of expressing and disseminating opinions, as well as their content and forms.”

 

3.2. Introduction of the Concept of Extremism Against the Constitutional Order

During the parliamentary consideration of the draft laws, at the second reading, at the initiative of members of the Georgian Dream, the Criminal Code was supplemented with a new article entitled “Extremism Against the Constitutional Order of Georgia.” According to this provision, systematic public calls by a citizen of Georgia or a stateless person with status in Georgia for mass violation of Georgian legislation, mass disobedience to the authorities of Georgia, or the creation of alternative bodies of the authorities of Georgia; the arbitrary, public, and systematic presentation by the same person of oneself or another person as a representative of the authorities of Georgia; or any other systematic action committed by the same person - if any of the above acts provided for in this paragraph is aimed at establishing a perception of the illegitimacy of the constitutional order or constitutional bodies of Georgia and harms the interests of Georgia or creates a real threat of harm to those interests - shall be punishable by a fine, community service for 400 to 600 hours, or imprisonment for up to three years. A legal entity shall be punished for an act предусмотренный by this article by a fine or liquidation and a fine.

ISFED considers that this regulation also constitutes a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction of freedom of speech and expression. There is a risk that this article may be used to persecute persons who do not support the Georgian Dream and/or who do not share or criticize the policies pursued by the party or by any state institution.