The Georgian Dream government is adopting a new series of repressive laws aimed at punishing citizens holding critical views, activists, business, representatives of civil society, the media, and political parties.

The amendments affect seven legislative acts of Georgia. Georgian Dream announced the amendments on 28 January 2026. The following day, on 29 January, the draft laws reflecting these amendments were officially registered with the Bureau of Ivanishvili’s parliament. On 3 February 2026, Parliament adopted the bills at first reading.

The amendments essentially prohibit and, moreover, criminalize public discussion of socio-political issues, citizens’ engagement in debates on matters of public concern, and the dissemination of opinions about the present and future of the country that the government may dislike or that expose it for adopting unlawful decisions or engaging in unlawful conduct.

1. Previous Attempts to Restrict Civic Space

The presented draft laws constitute yet another step by Ivanishvili’s government to restrict or even eliminate independent civil society, critical media, opposition parties, and peaceful civic protest in Georgia—an objective the government has methodically pursued over the past nearly three years. Previous attempts, implemented through both legislative changes and administrative practices, included the following:

• March 2023: The government initiated the so-called “Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence,” but failed to adopt it due to mass protests and subsequently withdrew it;
• May 2024: Despite mass protests and extremely negative international reactions, and against the backdrop of violent crackdowns on peaceful demonstrations, the so-called “Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence” was adopted;
• April 2025:
  • Adoption of the so-called “FARA” (Foreign Agents Registration Act), requiring civil society and media organizations undesirable to the government to register as “foreign agents” and exposing them to potential criminal prosecution;
  • Amendments to the Law on Broadcasting prohibiting broadcasters from receiving direct or indirect funding from a “foreign power” and tightening regulatory norms for broadcast media;
  • Amendments to the Law on Grants prohibiting the receipt of foreign grants without the government’s prior consent;
• May and October 2025: Amendments to the Organic Laws on Political Associations of Citizens and on the Constitutional Court of Georgia, simplifying and accelerating procedures for banning political parties; introduction of rules prohibiting members of banned parties from engaging in political activity; additionally, in October 2025, Georgian Dream filed a constitutional claim with the Constitutional Court seeking the banning of three leading opposition parties;
• December 2024 – December 2025: Five rounds of amendments to legislation on assemblies and demonstrations, effectively abolishing the constitutional freedom of assembly; throughout 2025, criminal and administrative repressive measures were taken against civil society, including the freezing of bank accounts of many organizations and the questioning of their leaders before magistrate judges under the pretext of investigations into alleged “sabotage” and other purported crimes against the state;
• 2024–2025: A series of severe repressive measures aimed at suppressing peaceful protests, during which hundreds of protesters were beaten, thousands were subjected to heavy financial sanctions or administrative detention—including for standing on sidewalks—and more than one hundred individuals were unlawfully charged, many of whom have already been convicted;
• Throughout 2025: Eight leaders of opposition parties were convicted for failing to appear before the so-called temporary parliamentary investigative commission and are now additionally charged in a so-called sabotage case, facing up to 15 years’ imprisonment.

Despite these extremely restrictive legislative and administrative measures, the government has failed to suppress civic protest, which explains its current desperate attempt to further tighten an already repressive legal framework.

2.  Criminalization of Foreign Grants

Following the amendments introduced in April 2025 to the Law on Grants, new amendments to the same law—together with corresponding amendments to the Criminal Code—on the one hand, expand the concept of a foreign grant to an absurd extent and, on the other hand, criminalize both the provision and receipt of such grants in the absence of prior consent from the relevant government authority.

(a) Unreasonable Expansion of the Definition of a Grant

Under the current version of the law, a grant is defined as targeted funds transferred free of charge by a grantor (donor) to a grant recipient, in monetary or in-kind form, for the implementation of a specific humanitarian, educational, scientific-research, healthcare, defense and security, cultural, sports, environmental, agricultural development, or social project, or a program of state or public significance.

The proposed amendment unreasonably expands the definition of a “grant.” Henceforth, a grant will also include:

• Monetary or in-kind funds of an allegedly “political” purpose,
  • where the donor is:
    • a foreign state;
    • a citizen of a foreign state;
    • a legal entity of a foreign state;
  • and the recipient is:
    • a citizen of Georgia;
    • a person holding a residence permit in Georgia;
    • a legal entity of a foreign state whose activities “substantially involve engagement in issues related to Georgia”;
  • and which are “used or may be used” for:
    • activities carried out or to be carried out with the belief or intent of exerting any influence on the authorities of Georgia, state institutions, or any segment of society, aimed at shaping, pursuing, or changing Georgia’s domestic or foreign policy;
    • activities deriving from the political or public interests, approaches, or relations of a foreign government or a foreign political party.
• Funds provided for the same purposes to procure technical or expert services, transferred in monetary or in-kind form, in exchange for which the recipient provides technical assistance to the donor through the sharing of technologies, specialized knowledge, skills, expertise, services, and/or other forms of assistance;
• Technical assistance provided free of charge for the same purposes, in the form of sharing technologies, specialized knowledge, skills, expertise, services, and/or other assistance;
• Funds transferred to a branch: funds transferred in monetary or in-kind form by a legal entity of a foreign state to its representative office, branch, or division registered in Georgia.

(b) Obligation to Obtain Prior Government Consent to Receive Foreign Grants

The obligation of a foreign grant donor to obtain prior consent from the relevant government authority for the issuance of a grant was already established by the April 2025 amendments. Under those amendments, in the event a grant was issued in violation of this obligation, the grant recipient was subject to a fine equal to double the amount of the grant received.

This severe administrative sanction remains in force. In addition, violation of the same obligation is now punishable under criminal law. According to amendments to the Criminal Code, a new Article 319¹ is added to the chapter addressing crimes “Against the Constitutional Order and Foundations of Security of Georgia,” criminalizing violations of the obligations established by the Law on Grants, including:

• the direct or indirect receipt or use of a foreign grant by a recipient without the required consent;
• the use of a foreign grant, without consent, for engaging in activity related to political issues concerning Georgia, for purposes other than those specified in the relevant documentation;
• the provision of technical assistance without consent;
• the direct or indirect receipt or use of a grant by a legal entity of a foreign state without consent;
• the receipt or use of funds transferred in monetary or in-kind form which by their nature constitute a grant, but are issued on the basis of a different, fictitious, or sham transaction;
• the direct or indirect transfer of money, securities, other property, property benefits, or any other advantage to a citizen or legal entity of a foreign state in exchange for engaging in activity related to political issues concerning Georgia.

Each of the above acts is punishable by a fine, community service for a term of 300 to 500 hours, or imprisonment for up to six years.

The new article also includes a note defining “activity related to political issues concerning Georgia” as activity carried out or to be carried out with the belief or intent of exerting influence on the authorities of Georgia, state institutions, or any segment of society, aimed at shaping, adopting, or changing Georgia’s domestic or foreign policy, as well as activity deriving from the political or public interests, approaches, or relations of a foreign government or a foreign political party.

Furthermore, “activity related to the purpose of engaging in political activity” is classified as an aggravating circumstance for the offense of money laundering and is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 9 to 12 years.

According to the explanatory notes to the draft laws, these measures are justified by the need to “protect the sovereignty of Georgia.”

(c) Retroactive Effect of the Legislative Amendments

Under the proposed amendments to the Law on Grants, if a legal entity of a foreign state received a grant prior to the entry into force of the law and has not used it, it is obliged to apply to the relevant government authority to obtain consent for the use of the grant.

The same obligation applies to a person who received a grant in violation of Georgian legislation but has not yet used it.

The same obligation also arises where a person received a grant that did not require consent at the time of receipt, but does require such consent at the time of entry into force of the law. Until a decision on consent is adopted, the legal entity is prohibited from using the grant. Use of the grant entails liability under Georgian law.

Corresponding amendments to the Criminal Code likewise prohibit the use of a received grant for activity related to political issues concerning Georgia until a decision on consent is adopted. Violation of this prohibition entails liability under Article 319¹ of the Criminal Code.

The same consequence applies where a person received a grant in violation of Georgian legislation, has not used it, and has not obtained the required consent. In such cases as well, use of the grant entails liability under Article 319¹ of the Criminal Code.

(d) Assessment of the Above Amendments

Vagueness and Unforeseeability of Norms Restricting Fundamental Rights

The above amendments unjustifiably and extremely restrict—and in effect eliminate—the freedoms of thought, expression, and association, guaranteed by Articles 17 and 22 of the Constitution of Georgia and Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Moreover, these extremely restrictive norms, which essentially destroy the substance of the aforementioned rights, employ vague and unpredictable terms and phrases, making it difficult for individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly. Phrases such as “activity carried out or to be carried out with the belief or intent of exerting any influence on the authorities of Georgia, state institutions, or any segment of society, aimed at shaping, pursuing, or changing Georgia’s domestic or foreign policy,” or “deriving from the political or public interests, approaches, or relations of a foreign government or a foreign political party,” are so broad and all-encompassing that it is difficult to imagine any activity that would not fall within their scope.

For example, the following activities may—and inevitably will—be classified as activity aimed at shaping, pursuing, or changing Georgia’s domestic or foreign policy, or deriving from the political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party:

• activities aimed at the protection of human rights;
• dissemination of information and opinions, and engagement in public debate, concerning unconstitutional and unlawful decisions and actions of state authorities;
• analysing the government’s legislative initiatives, laws already adopted, and the overall deterioration of the legal framework, and informing the public about these issues
• exposing state authorities and officials for unlawful conduct, including involvement in corruption;
• election observation, documentation and aggregation of electoral violations, and informing the public thereof, and similar activities.

Disproportionality of Punishment and Chilling Effect

The above amendments are particularly alarming insofar as activity aimed at shaping, pursuing, or changing Georgia’s domestic or foreign policy, or deriving from the political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party, when carried out without the government’s consent, is punishable under criminal law, including classification as a particularly serious offense such as money laundering.

The imposition of severe criminal sanctions on activities related to the exercise of freedom of expression and association is disproportionate to any purported “legitimate aim,” such as the “protection of Georgia’s sovereignty.”

Such measures will also have a chilling effect, generating fear and self-censorship and pushing individuals to refrain from exercising fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of association.

Criminal Liability for Acts Not Yet Committed

As noted above, the amendments criminalize the granting and receipt of grants for “activity carried out or to be carried out” with the intent of influencing the authorities of Georgia, state institutions, or any segment of society, aimed at shaping, adopting, or changing Georgia’s domestic or foreign policy, or deriving from the political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party.

Particular attention must be paid to the phrase “activity carried out or to be carried out.” However unlawful and arbitrary the criminalization of otherwise lawful conduct may be, where conduct has already been carried out, the imposition of criminal liability at least does not raise questions regarding the existence of the act itself.

A different issue arises where criminal liability is imposed for “activity to be carried out,” as this entails liability for conduct that has not yet occurred.

A fundamental principle of criminal law is that criminal statutes define the criminality and punishability of acts that have been committed, not of acts that have not yet been committed. Imposing criminal liability for “activity to be carried out” constitutes a violation of this fundamental principle.

The exercise of freedom of expression/assembly becomes a resultless (formal) crime

It is also important to note that this new “crime” does not require the occurrence of any harmful consequence; it is a formal (resultless) offense. For it to be considered “completed,” it is sufficient that an activity be carried out or intended to be carried out “with the belief or intent to exert some influence” on the authorities of Georgia, state institutions, or any segment of society.

In other words, if a person receives some material assistance from a foreign national—even if that foreign national is a member of the person’s family or a close relative—and, at the same time, that person disapproves of the government’s domestic or foreign policy and shares this view with another individual, or expresses peaceful protest by standing on a sidewalk, the commission of this so-called crime is deemed completed. This is because all elements of this new “crime” would be present: (a) funds received from a foreign donor; (b) a Georgian citizen as the recipient; and (c) intent or belief to exert some influence on the authorities or even on “some segment of society.”

It is obvious to everyone that, in the case of a resultless offense, the burden of proof imposed on the prosecution is far lighter than in the case of a result-based (material) offense, since for a resultless offense the prosecution is not required to prove harm or a causal link between the alleged act and the harm incurred.

Accordingly, in this respect as well, the government has made it easier to initiate criminal prosecution against any individual merely for exercising the freedom of expression and/or assembly.

Retroactive Application of Criminal Law

As already noted, the above norms effectively confer retroactive effect on the law.

Article 31(9) of the Constitution of Georgia provides that no one shall be held liable for an act that did not constitute an offense at the time it was committed; a law has no retroactive force if it does not mitigate or abolish liability.

The same guarantee is enshrined in Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under Article 1(1) of the Organic Law on Normative Acts, a normative act has retroactive force only if this is explicitly provided for by that act. Under Article 1(2) of the same law, a normative act establishing or aggravating liability has no retroactive force.

Similarly, Article 3(1) of the Criminal Code provides that a criminal law establishing criminality or aggravating punishment has no retroactive force.

Georgian Dream is well aware of these prohibitions, as evidenced by the fact that the explanatory notes to both draft laws state that the drafts do not provide for retroactive application.

Nevertheless, the substance of the above norms clearly indicates that individuals are subjected to administrative and criminal liability for conduct that did not constitute either an administrative or criminal offense prior to the entry into force of these amendments.

Violation of the Right to Property

As also noted above, a person who lawfully received a grant prior to the entry into force of these amendments is nonetheless required to obtain consent from the relevant government authority, and in the absence of such consent, is prohibited from using the grant. Failure to comply with this obligation entails criminal liability.

In addition to the problem of retroactive application of criminal law, this obligation effectively abolishes the right to property by prohibiting the owner—the grant recipient—from using their own property, in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of Georgia and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

3. Equating Civil Society Organizations and Activists with Political Parties and Extending Party-Related Restrictions to Them

Under Article 1(3) of the current version of the Organic Law on Political Associations of Citizens, the norms established by that law concerning the legality and transparency of party financial activities also apply to a person who has themselves declared an electoral objective and uses relevant financial and other material resources to achieve that objective.

Under Article 1(4) of the same law, the provisions of the Organic Law of Georgia “Election Code of Georgia” applicable to independent candidates also apply to a natural person with a declared electoral objective.

Under Article 7¹ of the same law, a declared electoral objective exists where factual circumstances indicate a specific person’s desire to come to power through participation in elections. Such a declaration must be made publicly and aimed at shaping public opinion.

Ivanishvili’s government twice unsuccessfully attempted to classify Transparency International Georgia and its Executive Director as subjects with a “declared electoral objective” and, as a result, to impose on them the strict financial restrictions applicable to political parties.

Henceforth, the term “declared electoral objective” is replaced with “declared party-political objective,” and any subject having such an objective will be subject to the financial restrictions imposed on political parties, including the prohibition on foreign funding.

Under the new version of Article 7¹, a “person with a declared party-political objective” is defined as a 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 citizens’ political will, substantially resembles a political party.

Such a subject with a declared party-political objective, including a natural person, is obliged to comply with all obligations imposed on political parties—such as refraining from receiving prohibited income and submitting asset declarations. Violation of these obligations entails liability under the Criminal Code and is punishable by a fine or community service for 120 to 200 hours, as well as deprivation of the right to hold office or engage in certain activities for up to three years.

4.  Further Restriction of the Human Resources Necessary for Political Parties

Amendments introduced on 13 May 2025 to the Organic Laws on Political Associations of Citizens and on the Constitutional Court of Georgia authorize the Constitutional Court to ban not only parties that pursue constitutionally prohibited objectives (such as overthrowing or violently changing the constitutional order, undermining independence, violating territorial integrity, propagating war, or inciting national, religious, social, or other hatred), but also parties whose “declared objective and/or the essence of their activities (including their personal composition and/or the composition of the party list submitted to the election commission) substantially replicates the declared objective and/or the essence of the activities (including personal composition) of a party already banned.” Such a “similar” party must be banned within just 14 days.

An amendment introduced on 16 October 2025 to the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court further provides that a ban on a political party entails, inter alia, a prohibition on further political activity by any “person associated” with that party, including the establishment of a political party, party membership, the exercise of passive electoral rights in general elections, and holding state-political or political office.

Each of these amendments, individually and especially in combination, unjustifiably reduces the pool of persons who may potentially join a political party and engage in political activity, including standing for election or holding political office. This is particularly evident in circumstances where members of the government’s so-called parliament from Georgian Dream have already filed a constitutional claim seeking the banning of three major political parties—the United National Movement, Coalition for Change, and Lelo – Strong Georgia. If this claim is granted, tens of thousands of active individuals with political experience who are considered “associated persons” with any of the banned parties will be deprived of the right to engage in political activity. The concept of an “associated person” is so broad that it may encompass not only former party members, but also family members, friends, associates, and others.

Nor did Ivanishvili’s government stop there. Under new amendments proposed to the Organic Law on Political Associations of Citizens, party membership is prohibited for a period of eight years for any person who has received any income under an employment contract with an “organization carrying the interests of a foreign power.” Such organizations are defined as all entities that, under the so-called “Transparency Law” (“Russian Law”) adopted by the government in May 2024, receive more than 20% of their annual income from foreign sources, including civil society organizations and media outlets.

As a result, the potential human resources of political parties are further reduced, and party membership is prohibited not only for party activists, but also for any professionals—lawyers, economists, journalists, psychologists, social workers, medical professionals, and representatives of other fields—who have ever received even minimal income from a civil society or media organization. This, in turn, effectively eliminates the freedom to establish and operate political parties. Without political parties and political pluralism, electoral democracy cannot exist.

5.  Criminalization of the Receipt of Foreign Funds by Political Parties

From the moment of its adoption, the Organic Law on Political Associations of Citizens prohibited political parties from receiving funds from foreign sources. Violation of this rule results in a fine equal to double the amount of the prohibited income.

This rule remains in force. However, amendments to the Criminal Code now criminalize such conduct. Specifically, a new Article 319² is added to the Criminal Code, which criminalizes the receipt by a political party of any form of foreign donation. This offense is punishable by a fine, community service for 300 to 500 hours, or imprisonment for up to six years. Liability for this offense is imposed on the relevant senior official of the political party.

6.  Restriction of Entrepreneurial Legal Entities

Under the proposed amendments, a new Article 153¹³—“Political Activity of an Entrepreneurial Legal Entity”—is added to the Code of Administrative Offenses. Under this provision, a public political activity carried out by an entrepreneurial legal entity that is not related to its core entrepreneurial activity results in a fine of GEL 20,000. Under the initially proposed version of the draft law, the repeated commission of this act would have resulted in the imposition of a fine of 40,000 GEL. However, during the first-reading consideration of the legislative package by the Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, it was decided, at the proposal of the Committee Chair, that the repeated commission of the act would instead entail criminal liability.

“Political activity” is defined as activity carried out or to be carried out for the purpose of exerting influence on the authorities of Georgia, state institutions, or any segment of society, aimed at shaping, pursuing, or changing Georgia’s domestic or foreign policy.

According to the practice already established by the government, examples of such “political activity” include the purchase of face masks, Georgian and European Union flags, banners, megaphones, and similar items for participants in peaceful protests.

Conclusion

The amendments described above are not merely incompatible with several fundamental human rights—including freedom of thought and expression, the right to property, and the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege—but criminalize the exercise of those rights as such.

Such laws are completely incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society and indicate yet another attempt to entrench dictatorship in the country.

Criminalization of Human Rights in Georgia

Brief analysis of new legislative amendments announced 28 January 2025 

A new package of amendments across seven laws is expected to be adopted under an expedited procedure in the week of 2 February 2025. The measures expand the definition of “foreign grants” to cover broadly defined “political” activity, introduce new criminal offenses for receiving or providing such support without prior government consent, and extend party-style restrictions to civil society actors, professionals, and businesses. In practice, the package criminalizes core democratic activities: public debate, human rights advocacy, monitoring elections, anti-corruption work, peaceful protest support, and independent civic participation.

1.Context: escalating restriction of civic space (2023–2025)

Over the past nearly three years, the ruling authorities have steadily narrowed space for civil society, independent media, opposition parties, and peaceful protest through legislation and administrative pressure. Key steps include:

• March 2023: “Foreign influence” bill introduced, withdrawn after mass protests.
• May 2024: “Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence” adopted amid protests and violence.
• April 2025:
  • “FARA”-style framework requiring registration as “foreign agents,” with exposure to criminal liability;
  • Broadcasting restrictions prohibiting foreign funding and tightening regulation;
  • Grants law amended to require prior government consent for foreign grants.
• May & October 2025: party-banning procedures simplified/accelerated; bans extended to “associated persons”; constitutional claim filed to ban leading opposition parties.
• Dec 2024–Dec 2025: repeated restrictions on assemblies/demonstrations; increased administrative and criminal pressure (freezing accounts, summonses, detentions and fines for peaceful protest).
• Throughout 2025: opposition leaders prosecuted/convicted in cases linked to parliamentary commission non-appearance and “sabotage”-type allegations.

Why this matters now: despite the above, civic resistance has persisted. This package appears designed to close remaining channels by raising the personal criminal risk for ordinary civic activity.

2.Criminalization of foreign grants and “political” activity

A. Expanded definition of “grant” (overbroad and vague)

The amendments expand “grant” far beyond targeted project funding to include, in effect:

• funds or in-kind support with an alleged “political purpose” from foreign sources (states, citizens, legal entities);
• support for technical/expert services, including assistance and knowledge-sharing;
• free technical assistance (expertise, services, know-how);
• transfers from a foreign legal entity to its branch/representative office in Georgia.

Crucially, “political” purpose is framed to include activities that “may be used” to influence authorities or “any segment of society,” including activity tied to foreign “interests/approaches/relations.” This is broad enough to cover most public-interest work.

B. Prior state consent + new criminal offense (up to 6 years)

Receiving/providing or using a foreign grant without prior state consent becomes criminally punishable through a new Criminal Code provision (new article referenced as 319¹ in the draft), including:

• direct/indirect receipt or use of a foreign grant without consent;
• use of a grant for broadly defined “political issues concerning Georgia”;
• provision of technical assistance without consent;
• use of grant-like funds disguised via “fictitious/sham” transactions;
• various transfers framed as exchange for political activity.

Sanctions: fine, community service (300–500 hours), or imprisonment up to 6 years.

In addition, “political purpose” is introduced as an aggravating factor for money laundering, carrying 9–12 years (per the draft summary).

C. Retroactive effects in practice

The draft requires entities that received funds earlier (including when consent was not required) to seek consent before use after the amendments enter into force—creating liability for previously lawful situations and freezing use of funds pending approval.

3. Treating civil society/activists as “party-political” actors

The amendments revise the concept previously used to target individuals/organizations with a “declared electoral objective,” replacing it with a broader “declared party-political objective.” A subject (including a natural person) can be treated like a political party if its activities and public actions “substantially resemble” a party, including participation in forming citizens’ political will.

Consequences: party-style restrictions apply (including bans on prohibited income/foreign funding, reporting/asset-declaration-style duties), with criminal liability and penalties (fine/community service; possible bans from certain activities/office).

Practical effect: human rights and anti-corruption NGOs, watchdogs, advocacy groups, and civic leaders can be reclassified as quasi-parties for normal public-interest speech and engagement.

4. Further shrinking political pluralism via membership bans

Additional amendments expand disqualification from political participation:

• “Associated persons” of banned parties may be prohibited from political activity (party formation, membership, candidacy, holding political office), using a potentially expansive and vague notion of “association.”
• Proposed restrictions also bar party membership for eight years for persons who have received income under an employment contract with an “organization carrying the interests of a foreign power,” defined broadly (e.g., entities receiving more than 20% foreign funding under the “foreign influence” framework).

Practical effect: professionals who have worked for NGOs or independent media—lawyers, economists, journalists, psychologists, social workers, medical professionals, etc.—can be excluded from party life, undermining pluralism and democratic competition.

5. Criminalizing foreign support to political parties

Foreign donations to political parties were already banned with administrative penalties. The amendments add a new Criminal Code article (referenced as 319²) criminalizing receipt of any foreign donation, punishable by fine, community service (300–500 hours), or up to 6 years imprisonment, imposed on senior party officials.

6.  Restricting businesses from “political activity”

A new administrative offense is introduced for “public political activity” by an entrepreneurial legal entity not related to its core business:

• GEL 20,000 fine; GEL 40,000 for repeat offense.

“Political activity” is defined broadly as activity intended to influence authorities or “any segment of society” regarding domestic/foreign policy.

Practical effect: ordinary corporate support for civic initiatives (e.g., purchasing protective items or protest materials) can be penalized, deterring private-sector solidarity and participation.

7. Human rights assessment

The package raises serious concerns under core constitutional and international standards, including:

• Freedom of expression and association (Constitution of Georgia; ECHR Articles 10–11)
• Right to property (Constitution; Protocol No. 1, Article 1) via consent-based bans on use of lawfully received funds
• Legality and foreseeability in criminal law (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege; ECHR Article 7) due to vague definitions and retroactive effects
• Disproportionality / chilling effect from severe criminal sanctions attached to protected civic activity
• Risk of selective enforcement due to low evidentiary threshold for “intent to influence,” especially in “resultless/formal” offenses

These amendments do not merely regulate funding or party activity. They create a framework where routine civic participation, human rights advocacy, anti-corruption work, public debate, election monitoring, peaceful protest support can trigger criminal or severe administrative liability. The likely outcome is a sharp escalation in repression through selective enforcement, self-censorship, and institutional dismantling of pluralism.

8.  What we ask from embassies and international human rights organizations

1. Publicly call for suspension of expedited adoption and demand meaningful consultation with civil society and independent experts.
2. Request legal review by relevant international mechanisms (as applicable) and urge alignment with ECHR standards.
3. Raise cases directly with the authorities emphasizing illegality of vague/retroactive criminalization of protected activity.
4. Prepare protection and support measures for civil society and independent media at heightened risk (legal defense, emergency support, institutional partnerships).
5. Monitor enforcement (investigations, arrests, account freezes) and respond rapidly to first cases under the new provisions.