Transparency International Georgia regards the issuance of written warnings to critical broadcasters - TV Pirveli and Formula - by the Communications Commission, and considers that, through this decision, Ivanishvili’s regulator is imposing censorship on the broadcasters. It is noteworthy that, for broadcasters, each subsequent determination of a similar violation would serve as a basis for imposing substantial financial sanctions and/or for considering the suspension or revocation of their broadcasting licenses, which would pose a significant burden on media outlets already operating under limited financial resources.  Transparency International Georgia presented its critical position on this matter to the Communications Commission during the hearing held on April 2, in its capacity as a third party.

• What Did the Commission Accuse the Broadcasters Of?

On April 8, the Communications Commission - recently chaired by Goga Gulordava, a former member of parliament from Georgian Dream - issued only written warnings to critical broadcasters, considering that no comparable “violation” has occurred this year. The Commission took issue with the use of certain expressions, including: “regime,” “Dream’s prosecutor’s office,” “the oligarch’s team,” “Dream government,” “Ivanishvili’s Prime Minister,” “Ivanishvili’s MP,” “Georgian Dream police,” “so-called education reform,” “a night of hunting down activists,” among others. The Commission also alleged violations of the principles of impartiality and balance. The matter was reviewed during the Commission’s session on April 2, where it concluded that the broadcasters had violated Articles 54 and 52 of the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting by covering the issue in a “biased” manner, based on “personal attitudes” and “personal opinions.”

The decision was based on media monitoring reports prepared by the Media Services Regulation Department of the Communications Commission, covering selectively reviewed news programs from February 20 and 23 through March 11. The Commission threatened critical broadcasters on March 6 with the enforcement of repressive amendments adopted by “Georgian Dream” in April 2025. This followed the United Kingdom’s decision on February 24 to impose sanctions on two pro-government propaganda channels - Imedi and POSTV - for spreading and supporting Russian disinformation.

The amendments to the Law on Broadcasting, adopted last year, предусматривают (provide for) sanctions including financial penalties, suspension of broadcasting, or even revocation of licenses. In the context of a Communications Commission perceived as loyal to “Georgian Dream,” these measures pose a particularly serious threat and create a realistic risk of paralyzing critical television broadcasters.

On the basis of these changes, the Communications Commission already reviewed the matter once in the summer of 2025 and issued verbal warnings to the broadcasters at that time. On that occasion, the Commission was approached with a complaint by Georgian Dream.

• Non-Compliance of the Commission’s Decision with International Standards

The decision of the Communications Commission, which is based on repressive legislative amendments adopted by “Georgian Dream,” violates a number of internationally recognized standards and is inconsistent with the Constitution of Georgia, as well as with established best international standards and practices in this field.

In particular:

• Freedom of expression is guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution of Georgia, and the persecution of any individual on the grounds of their opinion or its expression is impermissible. Furthermore, mass media are free, and censorship is prohibited. Neither the State nor any individual has the right to monopolize mass media or the means of disseminating information.
• Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights likewise guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the right of the media to criticize public officials.
• Furthermore, the joint guidelines of the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission emphasize that a regulatory body must not be used as an instrument of political pressure, particularly during electoral periods.
• The Council of Europe’s Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 likewise underscores the necessity of the regulator’s independence and prohibits the suppression of critical content.
• Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that freedom of expression, including that exercised by the press and other media, constitutes one of the fundamental foundations of a democratic society and a prerequisite for its progress. This position has been firmly established through the Court’s extensive case-law.

• Imitation of a Fair Approach

Although at its April 2 session the Communications Commission also addressed, alongside the critical broadcasters, the issue of similar violations committed by two pro-government television channels - Imedi and POSTV - which had been sanctioned by the United Kingdom, observation of the proceedings clearly indicated that this was merely formalistic and served only the purpose of creating an artificial appearance of balance. This is confirmed by the positions expressed by representatives of the pro-government channels themselves, who did not attempt to defend the broadcasters’ positions and stated that they would endeavor to avoid using similar terms in the future. It is also noteworthy that the Commission found only 4 violations for Imedi, 7 for POSTV, and 18 and 20 violations, respectively, for TV Pirveli and Formula.

In contrast, the lawyers representing the critical broadcasters provided detailed explanations, clarifying that the phrases used by journalists were not personal opinions or assessments, but rather statements of widely recognized facts in society. They also emphasized that the media’s objective is not to conceal the position of any party; on the contrary, it is representatives of the Georgian Dream authorities who refuse communication and cooperation with them.

Accordingly, the Communications Commission’s claims may be perceived as an attempt to exert pressure on the media - through the restriction of freedom of expression, interference with editorial policy, and the looming threat of financial sanctions - intended to discourage coverage of the story.

• Conclusion

It is evident that “Georgian Dream” is seeking to silence and punish critical media by using the Communications Commission to impose financial sanctions and, ultimately, to threaten the suspension or revocation of broadcasting licenses. The fertile ground for achieving this objective is created not only by repressive legislation but also by the composition of the Communications Commission with party-loyal appointees - a body that the authorities have, for years, employed as a tool to persecute critical media.

To safeguard freedom of speech and expression in the country, it is essential that both Georgian citizens and international partners clearly condemn the use of the Communications Commission as a political instrument against independent media.