Georgian Dream continues to adopt repressive legislation aimed at restricting fundamental human rights, dismantling civil society, eliminating parliamentary oversight, and fully subordinating state institutions to the party.

This time, we present the legislative amendments that have been enacted since April 2025.[1]

The Georgian Dream-controlled parliament[2], which, according to the Constitution, should represent one of the branches of power and serve as a check on the executive branch, has transformed into a body that blindly executes the will of the ruling party, enacting severe and liberty-restricting laws in accordance with the interests of the oligarch.

With the adopted and proposed amendments:

• Georgian Dream has tailored the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression to its own interests and abolished essential guarantees of constitutional rights. In defamation disputes, the burden of proof in court is placed on the defendant rather than the plaintiff. A journalist may be held liable simply for failing to disclose the source of information. The law will have retroactive effect and will apply to statements made up to 100 days prior to its entry into force.
• Access to court decisions has been restricted, and the concept of “contempt of court” has been broadened. Any opinion or protest expressed in any form against the court or a judge in any public space, including social media, may lead to liability. Video or audio recording of court proceedings is permitted only with the consent of the High Council of Justice.
•  Failure to pay a fine imposed for blocking a road during a protest, disobeying a police officer, petty hooliganism, or insulting a political figure will result in imprisonment;
•  Repressive amendments to the Criminal Code, which also have retroactive effect, may prohibit convicted individuals (including those convicted of less serious offenses) from leaving the country;
•  The victim will have the right to demand compensation not only from the perpetrator of the crime but also from related persons (including family members), and to request the confiscation of their property;
•  A convicted individual who has not fulfilled their obligation to pay compensation to the victim will be prohibited from receiving assistance from a friend, relative, or family member exceeding twice the subsistence minimum;
•  In criminal proceedings, a court decision may be based on the testimony of an anonymous witness, along with other evidence;
• Georgian Dream has effectively abolished parliamentary oversight, which was already non-functional under the one-party system, and has halved the workload of MPs despite increased salaries;
•  Georgian Dream has subjected the receipt of grants by NGOs to government discretion and has already adopted a fourth consecutive law,  nearly all under expedited procedures, aimed at dismantling NGOs;
•  Repression in the public sector continues, with the closure of multiple LEPLs, resulting in dozens of job losses;
•  The Special Investigation Service, whose primary function was to investigate crimes committed by law enforcement officers, has been abolished;
•  The expulsion of foreigners from Georgia has been simplified, a measure the government mainly uses against foreigners critical of Georgian Dream.

1. The Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression is Turning into a Tool for Suppressing Expression

Members of Georgian Dream have introduced amendments to the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression that directly contradict the freedom of speech and opinion guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and fundamental international principles, while abolishing key safeguards for freedom of expression.

• The law eliminates essential protections that previously shielded the media or any citizen when expressing opinions on matters of public interest. For example:
  
  • A journalist may now be held liable solely for refusing to disclose the source of information, a practice that was previously protected under the principle of professional secrecy;
  • The provision has been abolished under which, in cases of doubt regarding the restriction of freedom of speech and if this doubt could not be resolved through legal procedures, it had to be resolved in favor of freedom of expression;
  • The rule prohibiting restrictions on freedom of expression in cases involving events essential to public awareness in a democratic society has been removed, even if such events involved private life or personal data.

• In defamation disputes, the burden of proof in court is now placed on the defendant rather than the plaintiff, who is no longer required to prove the falsity of the information disseminated. Additionally, in defamation cases, the plaintiff is no longer required to demonstrate that they suffered actual harm. If a person believes their reputation has been harmed by a statement, they may file a lawsuit.
• Previously, a person could be held liable for defaming a public figure only if they knowingly disseminated false information. Under the new amendments, liability may now arise even if the individual failed to take reasonable steps to verify the facts or acted in bad faith.
• Content-based regulation of freedom of expression has been introduced in cases involving insults in public spaces, including on social media. As a result, the state is now empowered to assess and regulate public statements and to restrict freedom of expression based on the content of specific thoughts or phrases.
• The partial or conditional exemption from liability (qualified privilege), previously granted in cases where the individual took reasonable measures to verify the accuracy of information, but was unable to prevent an error and later took effective steps to restore the damaged reputation—or if the expression served a legitimate societal interest where the benefit outweighed the harm—has been abolished. In such cases, individuals can no longer be exempt from liability if the disseminated information proves to be false.
• If the court determines that the publication of a correction or denial is insufficient to adequately compensate the plaintiff for the harm caused by defamation, the defendant may, at the plaintiff’s request, also be ordered to compensate the plaintiff for material or non-material (moral) damages.

The amendments have dismantled the safeguards of freedom of speech and expression, and the law—whose primary purpose is to protect the constitutional right to free expression—has been tailored to serve the interests of the authorities. The right of the media and citizens to disseminate information on matters of public interest will now be restricted under the pretext of privacy protection. Journalists may be penalized solely for refusing to disclose the identity of a confidential source. The tightening of defamation provisions and the shifting of the burden of proof onto the defendant will foster an environment where journalists or ordinary citizens may easily be held liable simply because their opinions are inconvenient or offensive to someone. The “Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression” is being transformed into a tool for suppressing expression rather than a mechanism for its protection, in clear violation of both the Constitution of Georgia and international human rights standards.

2. New Possibilities for Arresting Protest Participants
Georgian Dream has introduced amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses, under which failure to pay a fine imposed for blocking a road will result in imprisonment. Failure to pay fines for disobeying a police officer, petty hooliganism, or insulting a political figure will also lead to imprisonment.

The procedures for appealing fines have also changed. If the imposed penalty is a fine or imprisonment, appeals may now only be filed in court. For example, under the previous procedure, a fine for blocking a road could be appealed first to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and then to the court, with the enforcement of the fine suspended during the appeals process. Under the amended rules, such appeals must now be made directly to the court.

3. Georgian Dream Has Restricted Access to Court Acts and Judicial Independence
Georgian Dream has introduced amendments to the Law “On Common Courts,” in what appears to be a deliberate attempt by the ruling party to formalize its control over the judiciary and dismantle public oversight mechanisms.

• Courtrooms have been closed to the media and the public. While the initial draft allowed audio-video recording of proceedings upon a judge’s approval, subsequent revisions transferred this authority to the High Council of Justice, rather than the court itself.
• Access to court decisions has been restricted. Court acts will now be made available to the public only after a final decision has entered into legal force, meaning that decisions will remain inaccessible until all possible appeals are exhausted.
• The court has been granted the authority to confiscate personal belongings including mobile phones, computers, photographs, films, videos, and/or audio equipment of anyone entering a court building.
• The composition of the High Council of Justice has been altered. The number of judge members has increased, while the number of non-judge members has decreased now consisting of 12 judges and only 3 non-judge members. These changes further consolidate power within the judicial elite. Transparency has also diminished, as the Council is no longer obligated to publish various types of public information, including session minutes and details about judicial candidates.
• Guarantees of individual judicial independence have been significantly curtailed, while oversight mechanisms have been intensified. Judges are now prohibited from participating in public events or trainings without the Council’s permission. The term of judicial assignments has been extended from two to three years, with the possibility of a two-year extension.
• The definition of “contempt of court” has been broadened. Any opinion or protest expressed in any public space,including on social media, that is directed against a court or judge may result in administrative liability. Any form of perceived undermining of judicial independence, including expressing opinions that may be interpreted as such, is now prohibited.

The proposed amendments represent a serious regression in terms of the transparency and independence of the judiciary, further transforming the courts whose independence is already in question into even more closed institutions. The closure of court proceedings and the restriction of access to court decisions significantly undermine public mechanisms for judicial oversight.

The expansion of the concept of “contempt of court” poses a direct threat to freedom of expression. Its vague and open-ended wording creates a high risk of repressive application, where public criticism may be interpreted as hostility toward the court and subject to punishment.

The dominance of judges within the composition of the High Council of Justice, combined with the reduction of non-judge members and the removal of transparency obligations, raises the risk of further entrenchment of the ruling judicial group and weakens the Council’s functional independence.

The amendments also curtail judicial independence. Conditioning participation in trainings and public events on Council approval, along with the extension of business trip terms, serves to increase institutional control over judges and limit their personal autonomy.

4. Anonymous Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings
Georgian Dream has introduced amendments to the Criminal Code allowing the identity of a witness to remain undisclosed. Specifically, the identity of a participant in an operative-search activity or a covert investigation may remain confidential indefinitely. Such an anonymous witness will be questioned remotely in a manner that prevents the defense from identifying or recognizing them.

This amendment effectively permits court decisions to be based on evidence that the defense will have no opportunity to examine, with the identity of the witness remaining unknown an outright violation of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms.

5. Grants to Be Issued and Received Only with Government Permission
Georgian Dream has initiated and supported amendments to the Law on Grants, under which friendly states and international organizations will be prohibited from providing assistance to Georgian citizens without the prior consent of the Georgian government.

Grants will now be subject to mandatory government approval. Any modification in the purpose of a grant will also require government authorization. These rules and restrictions extend to all funds transferred free of charge, whether in cash or in kind, if deemed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau to constitute grants. Technical assistance such as the sharing of technologies, specialized knowledge, skills, expertise, and other forms of support will also be classified as grants.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau will oversee the issuance and receipt of grants without government consent and has been granted virtually unrestricted authority in this regard.

Receiving a “prohibited” grant will result in a fine equal to twice the amount of the grant. The grantee may be held liable for a period of six years from the date of receiving the grant.

Given that state institutions have become extensions of the ruling party, civil solidarity and activism remain the only effective means of public protection. The essence and anticipated effect of this law amount to political persecution, aiming to isolate citizens from the international community and subject them to the punitive system of the ruling party.

This initiative is part of Georgian Dream’s ongoing strategy to dismantle civil society and public assistance frameworks in Georgia. Despite the introduction of so-called “Russian laws,” as well as the persecution of civil society and the seizure of solidarity funds, the objective has not yet been fully achieved.

The requirement in the Law on Grants that any donor-issued grant must receive prior consent from the Government of Georgia or a designated authorized body constitutes a direct interference with the right to freedom of association.

It is also notable that members of Georgian Dream have previously named specific organizations they deem undesirable and to whom they will refuse grant consent.

On May 27, Georgian Dream introduced additional amendments to the law, specifying that these restrictions will not apply to the European Union’s research and innovation program Horizon Europe, the Erasmus+ program, grants issued under the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), or the Creative Europe program implemented between Georgia and the European Union.

6. Georgian Dream Legalizes Restrictions on Leaving the Country, Seizure of Property from Related Persons, and Prohibition of Assistance to Convicted Individuals

Georgian Dream has introduced amendments to the Criminal Code that allow a victim to seek compensation not only from the person who committed the crime, but also from their close relatives and related individuals.

These amendments also introduce a travel ban from Georgia as a form of social protection measure: for less serious crimes 6 years, for serious crimes 12 years, and for especially serious crimes 16 years.

Following the initial proposal, even harsher provisions were added. Specifically, a convicted person will be prohibited from receiving assistance exceeding a modest threshold (twice the subsistence minimum), including housing, transportation, or any form of material aid. Any individual including family members, relatives, or friends who provides such assistance may face criminal liability of up to five years in prison.

The amendments are currently stalled at the second reading stage.

These proposed changes to the Criminal Code are incompatible with the principles of a rule-of-law state. Holding close relatives or related persons financially responsible for a crime, by enabling the seizure of their property, violates the principle of individual criminal responsibility.

Designating a “ban on leaving Georgia” as a social protection measure undermines democratic values, human rights principles, and a person’s constitutional right to freedom of movement—especially when applied in cases involving non-custodial or suspended sentences.

The bill’s introduction followed the abduction and detention of Giorgi Bachiashvili by security services. He was accused by Bidzina Ivanishvili of embezzling large amounts of property and legalizing illicit income. Following the bill’s proposal, Georgian Dream representatives announced that the amendments would be retroactively applied to Bachiashvili.

Prohibiting a convicted person from receiving assistance from relatives and criminalizing such assistance contradicts fundamental human rights and the principles of human dignity and compassion.

7. Continuing Repression in the Public Service - Abolition of LEPLs

A key component of Georgian Dream’s strategy to suppress the growing protest movement is the consolidation of party control over the public service. To this end, Georgian Dream has enacted repressive laws and simultaneously begun dismissing civil servants who have publicly opposed Georgia’s deviation from the European path.

The most recent wave of purges within the civil service has affected the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Georgian Dream initiated a new provision enabling early termination of diplomatic missions or consular assignments if an individual violates general ethical and conduct standards approved by the Minister if such a violation is deemed damaging to the country's interests or image, or contrary to the foreign policy directions set by Parliament and the Ministry’s interests.

In parallel, the LEPL Information Center on NATO and the European Union was abolished. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this is part of an institutional reorganization, and the Center will be transferred to the Ministry. The closure followed a reduction in staff at Georgian embassies in NATO member states, including the United States, Germany, Spain, Moldova, and Poland.

The LEPL Levan Mikeladze Diplomatic Training and Research Institute at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was also dissolved.

These reorganizations appear to be retaliatory in nature, targeting individuals who signed a petition in support of Georgia's European integration launched by Ministry employees in December. It is expected that, following the dismissal of these individuals, their positions will be filled by political loyalists of Georgian Dream.

Additionally, Georgian Dream supported amendments to the Law on General Education, under which the LEPL Educational and Scientific Infrastructure Development Agency will be abolished as of September 1, 2025.

Under amendments to the Law on the Rules for Planning and Coordination of National Security Policy, the Office of the National Security Council will also be abolished from September 1, 2025. Affected employees will receive compensation equal to one month’s salary.

8. Abolition of the Intelligence Service

Georgian Dream supported amendments that transformed the Intelligence Service into a subordinate agency within the State Security Service renamed the National Intelligence Agency. The head of this agency is now appointed and dismissed by the head of the State Security Service. These amendments came into effect on July 1, 2025, and the employment contracts of personnel previously employed by the Intelligence Service were terminated.

It should be noted that this is not the first attempt[3] to abolish the Intelligence Service and merge it with the State Security Service. A similar structural reform was proposed in November 2017, envisioning the merger of the State Intelligence Service with the State Security Service. The draft law at that time contained several vague provisions that drew criticism from civil society[4], leading the government[5] to withdraw the proposal from Parliament.[6]

The current initiative by Georgian Dream presents the same risks and challenges to national security. A unified civil security service combining internal security and foreign intelligence functions inevitably results in an excessive concentration of power within a single institution. There is a significant risk that foreign intelligence operations which are typically subject to less stringent regulation may be conducted under the broader national security mandate, which usually demands stricter oversight.[7] Moreover, there is a heightened risk of politicization of the agency, which fundamentally contradicts the core principles and functions of an intelligence service.

9. Abolition of the Special Investigation Service
Georgian Dream has once again initiated the abolition of the Special Investigation Service (SIS) and its merger with the Prosecutor’s Office. Ensuring the effectiveness, institutional independence, and impartiality of the SIS was among the 9 reservations[8] raised by the European Commission regarding Georgia’s EU candidate status.

Recently, dozens of citizens have lodged complaints with the SIS concerning crimes allegedly committed by law enforcement officers during pro-European protests; however, no perpetrators have been identified, and no meaningful results have been achieved. Rather than strengthening the institution tasked with investigating crimes by law enforcement, Georgian Dream has entirely abandoned the existence of an independent investigative body. Notably, the failure to investigate systemic abuses by law enforcement during protests led to the sanctioning of the agency’s head, Karlo Katsitadze, by the United Kingdom. Consequently, the agency’s merger and Katsitadze’s dismissal may be part of a broader pattern whereby officials sanctioned by the UK and the US are removed from their positions.

The former head and deputies of the service will receive compensation equivalent to three months’ salary. Civil servants employed by the service will also receive three months’ salary  

as compensation upon the agency’s liquidation and will have the option to be enrolled in the civil servant reserve.

10. Abolition of Parliamentary Oversight through Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of Parliament
On May 13, 2025, Georgian Dream deputies endorsed a new draft of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament, effectively abolishing parliamentary oversight and citizen participation in the legislative process. Councils established to protect the rights of women and children were dissolved, and the functions and workload of parliamentary committees were halved. These changes occurred against the backdrop of significant salary increases for members of parliament in 2025 the current base salary is 11,680 GEL, with additional increments for officeholders (e.g., committee chairs earn 12,556 GEL, and the parliamentary chair earns 14,600 GEL). At the same time, parliamentarians secured the right to hire additional assistants to enhance their own comfort.

Under the new regulations, Parliament has effectively relinquished its primary role: oversight of the executive. Even prior to these changes, the Georgian Dream majority rarely employed oversight mechanisms effectively. Ministerial scrutiny, thematic investigations, councils, and committees functioned largely as formalities without delivering substantive accountability. The new Rules of Procedure merely codify what has long been evident that Georgian Dream deputies prioritize their political comfort over transparency or public engagement: more salaries, more assistants, expanded social benefits, and less actual work. Accordingly, they reshaped parliamentary procedures to serve their own interests favoring formality, isolation, and unchecked exercise of power.

The New Rules of Procedure of Parliament:

• The Minister’s Hour[9] and the Institute of Thematic Investigations two important tools of parliamentary control have been eliminated. This move clearly aims to increase political comfort rather than accountability. The explanatory note to the amendments claims that a greater number of interpellations will compensate for the loss of the Minister’s Hour. However, these mechanisms differ fundamentally in purpose and function and are not interchangeable.
•  If the former Speaker of Parliament or the Majority Leader resigns or is dismissed, they will continue receiving the higher salary associated with any parliamentary position they hold. In practice, this ensures they retain the financial privileges of their highest-ranking roles even after leaving them.
• Committees will no longer address key constitutional and institutional matters such as the election of officials, formation of investigative or other temporary commissions, declaration of confidence in the government, election of the president, or impeachment procedures. Moreover, committees are now required to convene only once a month, down from a minimum of two sessions.
• The Permanent Parliamentary Council for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and the Permanent Council for Gender Equality have been abolished. While these bodies had become largely symbolic in recent years, rather than improving and empowering them, Georgian Dream has opted to eliminate them altogether.
• The Permanent Council for Open Governance has been abolished. Parliament and committees are no longer required to submit annual action plans. Committees are also no longer obligated to publish comprehensive information about working group activities, including meeting minutes. Additionally, MPs are now permitted to leave the chamber during votes, which raises the risk of proxy voting. Legislative proposals will bypass committee discussions and instead be circulated to all MPs, who will have one month to submit a corresponding legislative initiative.
• A boycott can now only be declared for specific agenda items, not entire plenary sessions. As a result, non-attendance will be counted as an absence. Guests at committee or plenary sessions are prohibited from expressing personal views on political developments. Even though there is virtually no opposition within the current parliament, the ruling party continues to dismantle remaining institutional tools of oversight. For example, parliamentary factions will no longer be able to request a session through a written appeal to the Bureau Chair, and the threshold for forming temporary commissions has been raised from one-quarter to one-third of MPs making it more difficult for the opposition to act.

11. Initiative on the Expulsion of Foreigners

The Georgian Dream has extended its repressive policies beyond its own citizens to include foreign nationals. This is evident in recent amendments to the Law on International Protection, which introduce new forms of punishment and administrative sanctions against foreigners specifically, expulsion from Georgia and bans on re-entry for a defined period.

These changes appear to be aimed at targeting foreigners who express critical views. According to data from the Migration Department as of April, 25 foreign nationals[10] who participated in the November–December protests in Tbilisi and were subject to administrative penalties by the courts were subsequently expelled from the country.

Despite numerous reports of physical violence committed by law enforcement officers against these individuals, there has been no investigation or accountability. Instead of addressing these violations, the government responded by removing the victims from the country.[11]