On 18 February 2026, Parliament adopted at second reading a new package of extremely repressive legislative amendments that criminalizes and punishes with up to 6 years’ imprisonment the receipt of any kind of funds from abroad without the consent of Ivanishvili’s government, even if such funds are granted and received as remuneration for services permitted under ordinary law, if these funds “are used or may be used”:

·   to carry out or support activities aimed at exerting any influence on the Government of Georgia, state institutions, or any part of society, which are directed at:

o   shaping, implementing, or changing Georgia’s domestic or foreign policy;

o   and are also used or may be used for activities deriving from the political or public interests, approaches, or relations of a foreign government or a foreign political party.

As was explained in detail by our organization at the time of initiating this legislative package, it criminalizes any critical opinion expressed toward the authorities and therefore essentially abolishes freedom of expression.

However, as now becomes clear, the Ivanishvili regime did not stop at the initially proposed repressive provisions. During the second reading of the draft laws, bypassing the initiation procedure established by the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, new repressive criminal provisions were added to the amendments to the Criminal Code, which further expand criminal liability for expressing critical opinions.

1. The So-Called “Extremism against the Constitutional Order of Georgia” Is Declared a Crime

(a) Description of the New Offense

According to the new amendment, a new Article 316¹ is added to the Criminal Code, titled “Extremism against the Constitutional Order of Georgia,” formulated as follows:

“Systematic public calls by a citizen of Georgia or a stateless person having status in Georgia for mass violation of Georgian legislation, mass disobedience toward the authorities of Georgia, or the creation of alternative bodies to the authorities of Georgia; the arbitrary, public, and systematic presentation by the same person of another person or oneself as a representative of the authorities of Georgia; or other systematic action committed by the same person, if any of the above-mentioned actions 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 harming the interests of Georgia, —

shall be punishable by a fine, community service from four hundred to six hundred hours, or imprisonment for up to three years.

Note: A legal entity shall be punished for an act provided for by this article by a fine or liquidation and a fine.”

(b) Elements of the New Offense

According to the above-quoted provision, a crime consists of:

1)             Subject of the crime: an act committed by a citizen of Georgia or a stateless person having status in Georgia;

2)             Prohibited conduct:

a) systematic public calls:

o   for mass violation of legislation;

o   for mass disobedience toward the authorities of Georgia; or

o   for the creation of alternative bodies to the authorities of Georgia;

b) arbitrary, public, and systematic presentation of another person or oneself as a representative of the authorities of Georgia; or

c) other systematic action;

3) If any of the above actions:

Purpose: is aimed at establishing a perception of the illegitimacy of the constitutional order or constitutional bodies of Georgia; and

Result: harms the interests of Georgia or creates a real threat of harm to the interests of Georgia.

(c) The Elements of the New Offense Open the Door to Unjustified State Interference with Freedom of Expression and Also Contradict the Principle of Legality

Like many other steps taken by the Georgian Dream government in recent years, the introduction of an ‘extremism’ provision into the Criminal Code is being carried out in accordance with a Russian playbook.

It is undisputed that the elements of the new offense described above impose restrictions that open the way for state interference with freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution of Georgia and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as other international legal instruments in the field of human rights.[1]

Accordingly, whether such interference is justified must be assessed on the basis of whether:

a) the restriction is prescribed by law,

o   which requires that the restriction not only be set out in law but that the law itself meet qualitative requirements and be sufficiently foreseeable to enable a person to regulate their conduct;[2]

b) such interference pursues a legitimate aim;[3]

c) the interference is necessary in a democratic society, namely:

o   whether there is a pressing social need;[4]

o   whether it is proportionate to the declared legitimate aim;[5]

o   whether the authorities have provided relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference.[6]

(1) Unforeseeability of the Provision and Its Potential Selective Application

1. Vaguness

First of all, the elements of the new offense are excessively vague and potentially criminalize any expression containing criticism of the authorities.

In this regard, the words “other systematic action” are particularly notable, as they create fertile ground for broad and arbitrary interpretation. Likewise, both the purpose (“aimed at establishing a perception of the illegitimacy of the constitutional order or constitutional bodies of Georgia”) and the result (“harms the interests of Georgia or creates a real threat of harm to the interests of Georgia”) allow for broad and arbitrary interpretation.

A separate issue concerns the meaning of the term ‘perception’ and the manner in which it may be objectively measured. As the draft law provides no instructions in this respect, there is a substantial risk that a court may rely solely on conjecture when determining issues related to ‘perception,’ which would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under these principles, a person may not be convicted on the basis of assumptions, and any conviction must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Conflict between the purpose and result

However, there is also an internal contradiction between the declared purpose and result of the provision. Democratic constitutionalism is based on the idea that the interests of the state differ from the interests of a particular government, while power ultimately belongs to the people, who are the source of authority (“popular sovereignty”).[7]

Based on this principle, expression aimed at “establishing a perception of the illegitimacy of constitutional bodies” cannot produce harmful consequences for the state or create a real threat of such harm: if discussion about illegitimacy is superficial and unjustified, it will not harm either the government or the state; and if such discussion is well-founded, it may be harmful to the government but not to the state, because under the idea of popular sovereignty, if a government is illegitimate, this means it has usurped power from the people. Expressing such an opinion is not only a right of a conscious citizen but also a civic responsibility and moral duty.

(c) Incompatibility with the principle of legality

Based on the above reasoning regarding the poor quality of the law and the vagueness/unforeseeability of the provision, the elements of the new offense also contradict the principle of legality established by Article 31(9) of the Constitution of Georgia[8] and Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege).[9]

(d) Perception of the government’s illegitimacy is already widespread

It should also be noted that the opinion regarding the illegitimacy of the government is already widely spread in Georgia, which the authorities themselves have created grounds for through the falsification of the 26 October 2024 elections, decisions against Georgia’s European integration, brutal dispersals of civil protest demonstrations, adoption of a series of anti-democratic laws, persecution of political opponents, etc. The perception of its illegitimacy is also widespread internationally. Therefore, no future action can “establish” a perception of something that has long already been established.

(e) Risk of selective application

Finally, as noted above, such vagueness of the law also ensures that it may be used to punish any critical opinion. Since the number of potential “offenders” may be very large, there is a reasonable assumption that this anti-democratic norm may be applied selectively, only against specific targeted individuals.

(2) Absence of a Legitimate Aim

In addition to the fact that the conduct declared criminal by Ivanishvili’s government fails to meet the standards required of a law in a democratic society, there is also no legitimate aim that this restriction could serve. The aims of protecting national security and public order are not applicable in this case, since opinions expressed by individuals about the illegitimacy of the authorities cannot threaten either national security or public order.

(3) Necessity in a Democratic Society

The proposed elements of the offense are also not necessary in a democratic society, since there is no pressing social need for their adoption, the authorities have not presented relevant and sufficient reasons for their adoption, and the criminal sanctions provided are disproportionate even to any theoretical legitimate aim that this measure is supposed to serve.

2. New Aggravating Circumstance

In addition to the changes described above, Ivanishvili’s Parliament is also amending Article 53 of the General Part of the Criminal Code, adding new paragraphs 3² and 3³.

According to this provision, committing a crime motivated by “non-recognition of the constitutional order or constitutional bodies of Georgia” will be considered a new aggravating circumstance when sentencing. In such cases, when imposing a term of imprisonment, the sentence to be served must exceed by at least one year the minimum term provided for the committed offense by the relevant article or part of an article of this Code.

The legality of these innovations is questionable for the same reasons expressed above in relation to the “extremism” article.

3. Exemption of Employees of Diplomatic Missions from Obligations Defined by the Law on Grants

The amendments to the Law on Grants, introduced during the second reading of the draft law, add an exception “for cases of technical assistance provided by employees working in a foreign government or its representation, or in an international organization, to their employer.” Specifically, such persons will be exempt from fulfilling the obligations established by the Law on Grants and, consequently, from criminal liability for failure to fulfill these obligations.

Summary

• The amendments introduced during the second reading of the already repressive legislative package recently initiated by the Ivanishvili regime add a new article to the Criminal Code — “Extremism against the Constitutional Order of Georgia,” whose broad and vague wording increases the risk of criminal liability and selective application for expressing critical opinions.

• This new prohibition turns journalists, experts, civil activists, opposition politicians, and essentially anyone whose opinions those in power may dislike into potential “criminals”.
• A new aggravating circumstance is also introduced for crimes committed with the motive of non-recognition of the constitutional order.
• The Law on Grants provides an exception for employees of diplomatic missions and international organizations.

[1] Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, no. 33348/96, [GC] 17 December 2004, § 84; Müdür Duman v. Turkey, no. 15450/03, 6 October 2015, § 30.

[2] Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, 6 October 2020, §§ 78-108;  Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, 4 July 2023, § 54.

[3] OOO Memo v. Russia, no. 2840/10, 15 March 2022, § 37.

[4] Gorzelik and Others v. Poland, no. 44158/98, 17 February 2004, § 95.

[5] Dammann v. Switzerland, no 77551/01, 25 April 2006, § 57.

[6] Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria, no. 39394/98, 13 November 2003, § 30(iv).

[7] Constitution of Georgia, Article 3(2), the first sentence.

[8] Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in the case “Citizens of Georgia – Alexander Baramidze, Lasha Tugushi, Vakhtang Khmaladze, and Vakhtang Maisaya vs. the Parliament of Georgia,” N2/2/516,542, May 14, 2013, pp. II-28-37.

[9] Del Río Prada v. Spain, no. 42750/09, [GC] 21 October 2013, §§ 91-93.