(December 2024 – March 2025)

Introduction

Since December 2024, Georgian Dream has introduced a series of repressive legislative amendments that grossly violate fundamental human rights and freedoms. These changes are aimed at restricting—or outright abolishing—freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, media freedom, political pluralism, and civil activism. The legislative amendments create a legal framework for the establishment of a full-fledged dictatorial regime in the country.

Through these changes, the government has tightened administrative and criminal liability against peaceful demonstrators, civil activists, critical media representatives, and public officials. Disproportionately severe sanctions have been introduced, including preventive detention, imprisonment for insulting political officials, restrictions on spontaneous gatherings, and increased, disproportionate fines and prison sentences for protesters.

Alongside other restrictive laws, Georgian Dream has also adopted yet another version of the so-called "agents" law, this time under the guise of an alleged equivalent to the American FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act). By its own admission, the justification for this new law is the ineffectiveness of the one passed in May 2024. However, its real purpose is the complete dismantling of civil society.

Additionally, new restrictive legislation targeting broadcast media has been passed, which effectively cuts off funding from international donors for critical television channels.

New regulations regarding the banning of political parties have also been launched, which could lead to the elimination of the opposition political spectrum and the de facto abolition of political pluralism in the country.

Below is an overview of all the repressive laws that have been initiated and/or passed in the last four months.

1. Repressive Measures Aimed at Abolishing Freedom of Assembly

On December 13, 2024, Georgian Dream passed in the third reading amendments tightening measures in both the Code of Administrative Offenses and the Georgian Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations.[1] These changes effectively serve as a tool for repressing peaceful demonstrators, substantially depriving citizens of their right to assemble and protest. The draconian amendments introduced by Georgian Dream directly contradict fundamental rights protected by the Constitution of Georgia and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The amendments target several key aspects, aiming both to punish demonstrators and to preemptively intimidate them into refraining from exercising their right to assemble in the future.

One of the most draconian changes is the introduction of the “preventive detention” mechanism. Under this provision, an individual may be detained to prevent the repeated commission of an administrative offense—even if they have not committed a new offense. This grossly violates the fundamental legal principle that no person should be punished for an act they have not committed. At the same time, it directly infringes upon the universal right to assembly and demonstration. Such repressive measures are characteristic only of autocratic regimes and are fundamentally at odds with the principles of the rule of law and fundamental human rights.

The Venice Commission has expressed deep concern over the introduction of the preventive detention mechanism.[2] The Commission points out that this measure undermines core legal principles, as preventive detention is typically justified only for serious crimes, not for minor administrative offenses.[3] It references rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which has established that granting such broad powers for preventive detention violates Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights—unless the government can provide specific evidence of an imminent, concrete, and serious offense.[4]

Furthermore, the amendment eliminates protective mechanisms such as judicial oversight in cases of detention and the imposition of strict time limits based on actual necessity.[5] The Commission strongly recommends that the government either repeal or significantly limit the preventive detention provision.[6]

The legislative package significantly increases penalties for offenses commonly used against protest participants. Specifically, partially or fully blocking a roadway now results in a fine of 5,000 GEL or up to 15 days of imprisonment. The organizer of such an action faces a fine of 15,000 GEL or up to 15 days of imprisonment. Previously, the fines were 500 GEL for participants and 5,000 GEL for organizers.

A repeat offense by an individual who has already been penalized will result in a fine of 5,000 to 10,000 GEL or up to 25 days of administrative detention. If the offender is an organizer, the punishment increases to a fine of 15,000 to 20,000 GEL or up to 60 days of administrative detention.

It is evident that these steep financial penalties serve as a tool for intimidation. According to the Venice Commission, OSCE/ODIHR, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), disproportionate sanctions—including excessive fines—can violate the right to freedom of assembly and create a chilling effect, discouraging individuals from participating in future protests.

Sanctions have also been tightened for organized road blockades or group movements using vehicles. Under the new law, violators will face a one-year suspension of their driver's license and a fine of 1,000 GEL. Previously, this offense was only punishable by a 1,000 GEL fine.

Another alarming new provision targets minors participating in protests. If a minor uses pyrotechnics or fails to comply with law enforcement orders, their parent will be fined between 100 and 300 GEL. This regulation is linked to government propaganda narratives, which claim that parents force minors to participate in protests—a message actively spread by state-controlled media and even publicly reinforced by the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs.

Under the new repressive law, fines for writing on walls and putting up posters have increased 20-fold. The minimum fine has risen from 50 GEL to 1,000 GEL, while the maximum fine has increased from 2,000 GEL to 3,500 GEL.

A 2,000 GEL fine is now imposed for the use of laser pointers or other "intense light emissions". However, the law fails to define what qualifies as "intense light", leaving broad discretion to law enforcement. This lack of clarity raises concerns that individuals could face penalties simply for shining a flashlight or using their phone’s light. The Venice Commission has strongly criticized this ban, arguing that it lacks legal precision and could be selectively enforced, undermining legal certainty and disproportionately restricting freedom of assembly.[7]

The amendments also completely prohibit covering one’s face in any form during protests, imposing a 2,000 GEL fine for violations. Protesters often cover their faces for safety reasons, particularly during demonstrations where authorities deploy tear gas and chemical agents. By banning this protective measure, the government effectively strips individuals of their right to protect their health during state crackdowns. Notably, riot police and security forces frequently wear face coverings themselves—a blatant double standard that highlights the repressive nature of these amendments.

The Venice Commission has harshly criticized this measure, stating that banning face coverings at protests constitutes an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.[8] The Commission emphasized that covering one’s face may serve various legitimate purposes, including: protection against state repression, expression of political or religious beliefs, and defense against police tactics such as tear gas.[9]

The Commission further noted that the law’s broad wording, particularly the reference to "any other means" of covering one's face, leaves excessive discretion to law enforcement. This could criminalize even scarves, medical masks, or protective gear, making it impossible for protesters to anticipate what is legal. Additionally, the double standard in enforcement—where police officers are permitted to wear face coverings while protesters are penalized—further exposes the law’s arbitrary and oppressive nature.[10]

The new law prohibits wearing police uniforms, insignia, or anything resembling them, imposing a 2,000 GEL fine for violations. This restriction is particularly problematic due to its vagueness, which raises concerns about its selective enforcement for punitive purposes.

The Venice Commission acknowledges that unauthorized wearing of police uniforms can be legitimately restricted. However, it criticizes the ambiguous wording of the ban,[11] which fails to define what qualifies as “similar to police uniforms” clothing. This leaves broad discretion to authorities, allowing them to punish individuals based on arbitrary interpretations of their attire, increasing the risk of selective enforcement.

The law adds fireworks and laser pointers to the list of prohibited items at demonstrations, treating fireworks the same as explosives, radioactive materials, and firearms. Furthermore, the use of fireworks at protests, if it leads to “serious consequences,” is now classified as a criminal offense punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

This amendment lacks justification, as causing harm to individuals is already punishable under existing law. The definition of “serious consequences” is unclear, raising concerns about arbitrary enforcement. These restrictions are a direct response to protest tactics used in December 2024 demonstrations.

The Venice Commission has warned that while regulating fireworks at protests may be reasonable for safety reasons, enforcement must remain proportionate.[12] The Commission has urged authorities to ensure these measures do not serve as a tool for the arbitrary repression of protesters.[13]

The amendments prohibit demonstrations in indoor spaces without the explicit prior consent of the property owner. Additionally, they ban blocking entrances to buildings, highways, bridges, tunnels, overpasses, and key transport hubs, including railways. This restriction directly targets university protests, which have become a growing protest tactic. By limiting the available spaces for public demonstrations, the government is further suppressing dissent. It is evident that the government is cracking down on any innovative protest strategies. Just as it banned laser pointers after they were effectively used in December 2024 protests, it is now curtailing the use of university spaces for demonstrations. These escalating restrictions expose the regime’s fear of organized resistance and its intent to eliminate all avenues for public expression of dissent.

A significant shift in authority has taken place: decisions about reopening roads during protests will no longer be made by municipal authorities but by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA). This centralization of power allows the police to unilaterally determine when and how a protest must be dispersed. Additionally, it is now illegal for protesters to obstruct pedestrian movement, not just vehicular traffic. This vague provision could be used to criminalize virtually any large gathering in public spaces, as even a small group could be deemed to be impeding movement.

These amendments have been described by Amnesty International as “draconian new laws used by authorities to suppress dissent.” The organization has expressed concerns that the tightening of administrative sanctions and restrictions on protest logistics are part of a broader strategy to silence opposition.[14]

The legal definition of a protest organizer has been expanded to include not only those who initiate and lead protests but also anyone who “otherwise organizes” them. This ambiguous term could be interpreted broadly, potentially punishing individuals who simply share protest announcements online. The government has previously struggled to identify protest organizers, as many recent demonstrations have been spontaneous and decentralized. These amendments eliminate that challenge by allowing the state to label virtually any protest participant as an “organizer” and subject them to legal consequences.

Furthermore, if a protest blocks a roadway or disrupts traffic, the organizer is now legally required to submit an application to municipal authorities. This obligation appears designed to force protest organizers to publicly identify themselves, making them easier targets for repression.

A particularly alarming change is the introduction of a notification requirement for spontaneous protests. Previously, spontaneous protests were legally protected as a fundamental democratic right, allowing citizens to respond immediately to urgent public events.

Under the new law, even if a protest is organized spontaneously in response to a major public event, organizers must still notify municipal authorities if it is held on a roadway or disrupts traffic. This effectively eliminates the legal right to hold spontaneous protests and contradicts established rulings by Georgia’s Constitutional Court. The Venice Commission has criticized this requirement,[15] arguing that spontaneous protests should not be subject to overly restrictive bureaucratic procedures since they are a core feature of democratic societies.[16] The Commission is concerned with the fact that local authorities now have excessive discretion in setting notification requirements, creating legal uncertainty and the risk of arbitrary restrictions. According to the Commission, the government must ensure that notification processes do not impose unnecessary burdens on citizens or obstruct the right to spontaneous assembly.[17]

These legal amendments form part of a broader pattern of suppressing public protest and silencing opposition voices. By expanding the definition of a protest organizer, eliminating spontaneous protest protections, and granting police control over traffic disruptions, the government is tightening its grip on civil liberties.

International human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the Venice Commission, have warned that these changes violate fundamental democratic principles and are designed to instill fear in protesters rather than regulate public order fairly.

Another restriction prohibits the installation of temporary structures, such as tents or stages, at protests if authorities deem them a threat to safety, an obstruction to police operations, a disruption to businesses, or unnecessary for the protest’s purpose. This measure is a direct attack on the right to freely express dissent, as tents, stages, and similar structures have been a common and accepted feature of protests worldwide, including in Georgia. Determining what is “necessary” for a protest is a subjective decision that allows the government to dictate protest methods, stripping activists of their ability to organize sustained demonstrations. This arbitrary power effectively gives authorities the right to disrupt, weaken, or dismantle protests under vague justifications, further consolidating government control over public demonstrations.

Authorities have strengthened their ability to fine protesters by expanding the ban on blocking roads unless it is deemed “necessary” based on the number of demonstrators. This provision is being used as a legal loophole to justify mass fines and legal harassment of activists.

During the December 2024 and January 2025 protests, hundreds of people were summoned to court, some for multiple alleged violations.[18] Following additional legislative changes in February 2025, the number of fined protesters reportedly exceeded 1,000.

These mass legal actions indicate that the government is weaponizing the judicial system to intimidate demonstrators and discourage participation in future protests.

Reports suggest that the government may be processing and storing excessive amounts of personal data without proper safeguards, potentially violating privacy laws. The use of surveillance and data collection to track, monitor, and target demonstrators raises serious concerns about authoritarian overreach.[19]

These escalating legal and administrative measures serve a clear purpose: to dismantle protest movements, criminalize civil disobedience, and instill fear among activists. By restricting protest locations, limiting assembly methods, imposing excessive fines, and increasing police control, the government is creating an environment of fear and repression. These moves align with broader patterns of power consolidation aimed at silencing opposition and neutralizing political threats. The latest restrictions signal an attempt to completely suppress public dissent and eliminate any effective resistance to the ruling regime.

2.Attack on Freedom of Expression

In addition to the aforementioned amendments, the illegitimate parliament of Georgian Dream has introduced other legislative changes that significantly restrict freedom of expression.

Specifically, according to the amendment to Article 166, Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, "petty hooliganism" is now defined as "swearing in a public space, offensive harassment of citizens, and other similar actions that disrupt public order and/or the peace of citizens." In its previous version, the article only considered "petty hooliganism" to be an offense when committed in a "public place."

The difference in terminology can be interpreted in a way that allows punishment not only for swearing, physically offensive harassment of citizens, and similar actions that disturb public order and/or the peace of citizens in physical places, but also for engaging in such conduct in virtual spaces, such as social media. This expansion of prohibited actions is unjustified. While causing a disturbance in a physical place may indeed disrupt public order and citizens' peace, it is unclear how the same effect could be achieved by swearing or offensive harassment in a virtual space.

Additionally, penalties for petty hooliganism have been significantly increased, which is also inconsistent with the principle of proportionality. Before the amendments on December 13, 2024, a person could be fined between 500 and 1,000 GEL or sentenced to administrative detention for up to 15 days for such an offense. If the offense was repeated, the fine ranged from 1,500 to 2,000 GEL, or the offender could face administrative detention of 5 to 15 days. Under the new changes, the first instance of this modified offense is now punishable by a fine of 500 to 3,000 GEL or administrative detention for up to 20 days. If the offender has previously been found guilty of an administrative offense, the penalty increases to a fine of 3,000 to 5,000 GEL or administrative detention ranging from 5 to 60 days.

The redefinition of hooliganism and the tightening of penalties for this offense aim to restrict and punish expressions of opinion that are undesirable to Georgian Dream, including in the online space, where criticism of the authoritarian regime is particularly widespread. There is a high likelihood that any critical opinion that "disturbs the peace" of officials will be classified as hooliganism.

Additionally, pursuant to another amendment, verbal insults, swearing, or offensive harassment of a political officeholder or public servant will now be punishable by a fine of 6,000 GEL or up to 60 days of imprisonment.

The Venice Commission considers the introduction of this offense highly problematic, harsh and disproportionate.[20] The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly ruled that criticism of public officials must be protected within the framework of freedom of expression, even when it is disturbing or offensive. The Commission emphasizes that this provision could be used to suppress political dissent and silence government critics. They urge Georgian Dream to repeal or at least revise the law so that only direct threats or incitement to violence are punishable, rather than mere criticism or offensive remarks.[21]

Due to human rights violations, torture, and unlawful arrests, citizens have been sharply criticizing the regime, which causes discomfort for the illegitimate government. Political commentary and public criticism of officials’ actions could now be considered an offense by the ruling regime, leading to imprisonment simply for exercising the right to free expression. It is evident that the primary goal of this amendment is to silence and intimidate citizens.[22]

Furthermore, imprisonment for "swearing at a law enforcement officer" has been increased to a term of 15 to 60 days, while the maximum fine has risen from 4,500 to 6,000 GEL. Previously, the law only punished insults directed at police officers while they were actively performing their duties. Under the new changes, any insult or "swearing" directed at a law enforcement officer, as long as it relates to their work, is now punishable.

The Venice Commission has strongly criticized these changes, which introduce disproportionate fines and extended administrative detention for offenses related to public gatherings.[23] According to the Commission’s findings, excessively high fines could have a chilling effect, deterring people from participating in peaceful protests out of fear of financial ruin and thereby restricting their rights to freedom of expression and assembly.[24] Particularly alarming is the extension of administrative detention from 15 to 60 days, which the Commission deems inappropriate.[25] They emphasize that, in principle, peaceful demonstrators should not be subjected to criminal penalties or imprisonment at all.[26]

3.Amendments to the Criminal Code to Further Intimidate Society

In an effort to further intimidate the public, the illegitimate government has demonstrated that it intends to unjustifiably restrict freedom of assembly and expression not only through administrative measures but also by using criminal law mechanisms.

Under the amendments to the Criminal Code, penalties have been tightened for publicly inciting violent actions—even in cases where such incitement does not lead to any actual consequences. This offense is now punishable by up to three years of imprisonment. Notably, prior to this amendment, this crime did not involve imprisonment at all. The criminalization of public incitement to violence was first introduced in 2015 under the rule of Georgian Dream, but at that time, the punishment was limited to a fine or community service.

Whether a statement constitutes incitement to violence will be determined by the very regime that itself engages in violence against citizens and unlawfully detains protesters for expressing critical opinions. Autocratic regimes typically interpret calls to participate in protests against them as "public incitement to violent actions." There is little reason to believe that the Georgian Dream regime will be an exception in this regard. Clearly, this provision will be used to intimidate and punish protest leaders and activists, creating a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression.[27]

Another amendment introduces a new Article 353² to the Criminal Code, which criminalizes threats of violence, attacks, or similar actions directed against a Georgian state political officeholder, political official, public servant, equivalent official, or their family members. Such offenses are now punishable by a fine or up to three years of imprisonment. According to the second part of this article, if the same act is committed under aggravating circumstances, the penalty increases to a fine or imprisonment ranging from two to six years.

Before this amendment, threats against officials and their family members were not classified as a separate offense and were punished under general provisions. With this new rule, government officials are granted privileged protection compared to ordinary citizens. Moreover, under a repressive regime, this law poses a significant threat to political expression. It is designed to instill fear among the population and could become a dangerous tool in the hands of an authoritarian government to suppress opponents and civil activists.

The main issue with this new criminal offense is the complete ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a "threat of violence." Article 151 of the Criminal Code already includes the crime of "threat," which is defined as "a threat to take someone’s life, cause bodily harm, or destroy property, when the person being threatened develops a reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out."

First and foremost, unlike the offense defined under Article 151, the new special provision does not require threats involving "loss of life," "bodily harm," or "property destruction," nor does it require the victim to have developed a reasonable fear that the threat will actually be carried out. As a result, any form of "threat," even without reference to killing, harming someone, or destroying property—regardless of how realistic or credible it is—can now be criminalized.

Secondly, compared to the crime defined under Article 151, this new offense, which is objectively less severe, carries much harsher penalties. The only reason for this discrepancy is the identity of the "victim"—state officials. According to freedom of expression standards, the state should be more tolerant of so-called political speech, as government representatives are the primary targets of political expression. However, this amendment does the opposite: it imposes stricter punishment specifically for political expression.

Another initiative that Georgian Dream has announced in an effort to intimidate critical citizens is the reinstatement of "treason" as a criminal offense in the Criminal Code. Specifically, they intend to reintroduce provisions that were removed by the "United National Movement" in April 2007.[28] The proposed amendment[29] states:

1. A Georgian citizen or a stateless person residing in Georgia who commits any of the crimes outlined in Articles 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 318, or 319 of this Code shall be deemed guilty of treason.
2. Criminal liability for treason shall be determined under the relevant article of this Code, with reference to this article.

From the text of the amendment, it is evident that all the actions listed as "treason" are already criminalized under other articles of the Criminal Code. The reintroduction of a "treason" provision does not impose any additional legal responsibilities; rather, it serves as a political weapon for Georgian Dream to label its opponents as traitors. Their entire narrative is built on portraying critics as “foreign-controlled actors who receive money from abroad and betray national interests.” The goal of this amendment is to reinforce that stigma and advance their propaganda.

On April 1, the Georgian Dream Parliament passed the law in its third reading.[30]

4.Increased Police Powers

The procedure for personal searches conducted by the police has also changed. From now on, the Ministry of Internal Affairs will decide whether a witness must be present during a personal search. Previously, the person being searched had the right to request the presence of two witnesses, and this right could only be restricted in urgent cases where there was a real risk of evidence being damaged, destroyed, or hidden. With the new amendments, these guarantees have been abolished, and a search can now be conducted with the presence of just one witness—only if the Ministry of Internal Affairs approves it.

Recently, the police have been systematically violating legal procedures during personal searches and inspections. There have been numerous cases where individuals at protests were subjected to illegal personal searches. These changes make it easier for the police to search activists, significantly restricting citizens’ ability to protect themselves from police abuse.

Additionally, certain administrative offense procedures have been modified. For example, representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs now have the authority to directly impose administrative fines on demonstrators for allegedly "artificially" blocking roads.

5.FARA, or “Russian Law 3”: Another Attack on Civil Society

On February 5, 2025, Georgian Dream announced yet another set of repressive initiatives. They stated that the ruling party was planning to pass even more restrictive laws against civil society organizations. According to him, the law on foreign agents would be a "precise copy" of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).[31]

On February 24, the Georgian Dream parliamentary bureau officially registered a new legislative initiative—the "Foreign Agents Registration Act."[32] The bill introduced criminal liability for failing to comply with its provisions, and accompanying amendments to the Criminal Code established penalties of up to five years in prison for violations.

According to Georgian Dream representatives, "while the current Georgian transparency law applies only to NGOs and media outlets, the American law extends to individuals as well. Under this law, a private individual can be classified as a foreign power or agent. The law applies to any corporation, regardless of its organizational form—whether it’s an LLC, any other business or non-business entity, or an unincorporated association of individuals." This move is seen as a direct attack on civil society, aiming to suppress dissent, intimidate activists, and label critics of the government as foreign agents.[33]

The explanatory note of the bill described the motives behind its initiation. Specifically, it was stated that the "Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence cannot ensure transparency and its intended preventive function." It was also noted that the majority of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receiving significant foreign funding refuse to register in the designated registry and instead choose to accept legal sanctions. As a result, the current law is considered ineffective in fulfilling the legislator's intent.[34] Accordingly, despite the fact that NGOs are not the primary target of this law in the United States, it can be definitively stated that in Georgia, this law will be used precisely for this purpose.

On April 1, 2025, the parliament of "Georgian Dream" passed the law in the third reading.[35]

The law still includes the word "agent," which was present in the initial version of the "Russian Law" initiated by "People's Power" in 2022 (the bill on "Foreign Influence Agents"). Later, the name was changed to the "Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence."

According to the law, any person who:

1. Intentionally violates any article, clause, or sub-clause of this law, or
2. Intentionally includes false information about a material fact or deliberately omits any fact in any registration statement, additional documentation, or any other document submitted or provided to the head of the Department of Justice under this law, or fails to submit copies of documents that should be specified therein,

is subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to five years, or both.

The law provides exceptions for broadcasting media, diplomatic/consular personnel, foreign government officials, legal representatives of such officials, and individuals registered in the lobbying registry. Additionally, exceptions apply to scientific, academic, religious, educational, and artistic activities. There will also be exceptions for private and non-political activities (such as profit-oriented/business development activities, humanitarian work, or other non-political activities). However, it is expected that neither administrative bodies nor courts will consider online media and NGOs under these exceptions.[36] The authority to enforce the law has been assigned to the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Interestingly, in 2023, the chairman of "Georgian Dream," Irakli Kobakhidze, called FARA a "complete disaster" and insisted that such a law would be unacceptable in Georgia.[37]

As Georgian Dream itself indicates, this law will be used against the non-governmental sector and will serve as a key tool in the hands of a government striving toward dictatorship. NGOs and the media, as critical voices, have long been targets of Georgian Dream. The first version of the "Russian Law" was initiated in the spring of 2023 with the desire to repress and ultimately eliminate them completely, followed by the second version in the spring of 2024. The adoption of this law in its current form is merely a continuation of that path.

6. The Abolition of NGOs' Mandatory Participation in Public Decision-Making

Georgian Dream and the pseudo-opposition party People’s Power initiated and passed another legislative package,[38] which abolished the mandatory participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in public decision-making processes. The package includes amendments to 14 different legislative acts.

According to the explanatory note of the bill, "Recent developments, including global events surrounding USAID, have revealed that NGO participation in public decision-making hinders the effective implementation of state governance.[39] "Additionally, it states that "a large portion of NGOs are funded from abroad, meaning they act as agents of the interests of their funding states and organizations. Consequently, their actions in public decision-making are not based on the interests of the local society but rather serve the political and economic agendas of external forces."[40]

Among other restrictions, the legislative package removes NGOs' ability to nominate candidates for the Prosecutorial Council, the Disciplinary Board of Judges of the Common Courts, and the High Council of Justice. Furthermore, representatives of civil society organizations will no longer be authorized to participate in the selection commissions—created by the Prime Minister—for appointing heads of the Special Investigation Service, the Personal Data Protection Service, and the Anti-Corruption Bureau. NGOs are also excluded from the selection process for candidates for the Central Election Commission, the Public Broadcaster's Board of Trustees, and other bodies.

On April 1, the Georgian Dream Parliament passed the legislative package in the third reading.[41]

7. Amendments Aimed at Banning Political Parties

During the pre-election period for the October 26, 2024 elections, one of Georgian Dream’s main messages to voters was securing a constitutional majority to eliminate the "collective National Movement" from the political landscape.[42]

Although Georgian Dream failed to obtain a constitutional majority despite widespread electoral fraud, its goal of eliminating National Movement and, along with it, the entire opposition spectrum, appears to remain unchanged.

Serving this purpose—among other measures—is an amendment to Georgia’s Organic Law on "Citizens' Political Associations."[43] Under this amendment, in addition to its existing authority to ban a party whose goal is "the overthrow or violent change of Georgia’s constitutional order, the violation of the country’s independence, the breach of territorial integrity, or one that engages in war or violence propaganda, incites national, regional, religious, or social strife, or forms or has formed an armed group," the Constitutional Court will now also have the power to ban a party if "its declared goal and/or the essence of its activities (including its personnel or the composition of its party list submitted to the relevant election commission) substantially mirrors the declared goal and/or the essence of activities (including personnel) of a party previously banned by the Constitutional Court under the first paragraph of this article." Such a vague definition could apply to any party the Constitutional Court chooses to target.

Additionally, pursuant to the initiated amendment to the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court of Georgia, the court must issue a decision on a lawsuit regarding the banning of a political party within no more than nine months from the date of filing. Furthermore, during the election period, for a party that "substantially mirrors the declared goals and/or essence of activities of a banned party," the decision must be made within just 14 days.

8. New Restrictive Amendments on the Media

On April 1, 2025, Georgian Dream supported two packages of amendments to Georgia’s "Law on Broadcasting," which clearly contradict the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Georgian Constitution and international human rights law.

The first package aims to block critical broadcasting media from receiving funding from international donors.[44] Given the small size of the advertising market and other factors, such as the government’s pressure on businesses, critical broadcasting media will struggle to sustain themselves solely on advertising revenue.

The second package expands and intensifies the administrative control of the Communications Commission over independent broadcasting media, ultimately threatening the financial stability of critical media outlets.[45]

The adopted amendments have drastically reduced the role of self-regulation mechanisms in broadcasting. Issues such as the accuracy and impartiality of media coverage will now be primarily handled by the Communications Commission.

As stated, under the first package of amendments, broadcasters are prohibited from receiving direct or indirect funding (monetary or other material benefits) from foreign entities. This ban extends not only to direct financial assistance but also to the provision of equipment, training, media development programs, and other forms of support. The only exceptions include revenue from commercial advertising, teleshopping, sponsorship, and product placement in programs.

Aside from these exceptions, the amendments also prohibit foreign entities from purchasing broadcasting services, funding, or co-funding the production and/or airing of programs.

The term "foreign entity" is defined as any individual, legal entity, state body, or organization associated in any form with another country. Any assistance provided by such an entity will be prohibited, regardless of how noble or beneficial its purpose might be for the country.

Under the current "Law on Broadcasting," complaints regarding factual accuracy, the right to respond, obligations to present facts fairly and accurately, war propaganda, and news coverage of national and international events can only be submitted within the broadcaster’s self-regulation mechanism. Decisions made within this mechanism cannot be appealed in court, the Communications Commission, or any other administrative body.

However, under the second package of amendments, complaints related to the accuracy and fairness of facts, the inviolability of private life, and other issues can now be submitted either through the broadcaster’s self-regulation mechanism or directly to the Communications Commission. This means that, while it remains legally possible to file complaints through the self-regulation mechanism, in practice, the function will effectively shift to the Communications Commission. If the goal is to penalize a broadcaster, it is highly unlikely that a complainant will opt for the self-regulation mechanism instead of the Commission.

If a violation is determined, the Communications Commission will have the authority to impose fines on the broadcaster, amounting to 0.5%, 1%, or 3% of their annual revenue, depending on the circumstances. Additionally, the Commission may suspend or revoke the broadcaster’s license.

Also, according to the second package of amendments, requirements regarding the accuracy, fairness, and impartiality of facts are being expanded. The amendment states that "it is prohibited for a broadcaster to cover political or other types of conflicts or ongoing public policy issues in a news program based on the broadcaster’s personal attitude or opinion. It is also prohibited to express a supportive or opposing position regarding any political party, public or religious organization, or other interest group within the program." This provision essentially grants the Communications Commission the authority to interfere in the editorial policy of broadcasters, inevitably leading to censorship or at least self-censorship.

Additionally, a new requirement has been introduced that mandates all "significant alternative opinions" to be adequately represented in any editorial program. It also explicitly prohibits the distortion of facts or opinions and the misrepresentation of differing perspectives. This vague regulation will allow the Communications Commission to classify any interpretation by a broadcaster as "distortion of facts or opinions."

It is clear that the amendments initiated by Georgian Dream directly contradict international standards on freedom of expression and will further worsen the situation of critical media in Georgia. The primary goal is to weaken or completely dismantle independent broadcasting media by restricting their financial sources.

The objective of these repressive rules is to introduce censorship or self-censorship in the media and impose content control over critical channels. The role of the censor will be handed over to the Communications Commission—an entity that has repeatedly demonstrated its bias in favor of the government and against independent media.

It appears that the government is dissatisfied with its previous attempts to control the information and commentary aired on critical channels. This likely explains the introduction of these new restrictive norms.

These amendments were also passed on April 1 in the third reading.[46]

9. Amendments Targeting Public Servants

Since December 2024, Georgian Dream has initiated amendments to the "Law on Public Service" four times, each of which significantly deteriorates the legal status of public servants. The first round of changes was passed in December[47] through an expedited five-day review process. The second stage of amendments was also passed under a fast-track procedure on February 6, 2025.[48] The third package was approved on February 20, 2025,[49] and the fourth on April 1, 2025.[50]

These new regulations drastically undermine the rights of public employees and serve the purpose of fully subordinating the public sector to Georgian Dream.

Since the first introduction of the "Russian Agents Law," many public servants have openly criticized both the domestic policies of Georgian Dream and its foreign policy direction.[51] The intensity and frequency of such critical statements increased after the ruling party announced on November 28, 2024, that it was suspending negotiations on Georgia's EU membership bid.[52] In response to these critical voices, the government introduced a series of repressive legislative changes, which are outlined in detail below.

With these changes, "Georgian Dream" swiftly followed through on its threats against public servants who expressed dissatisfaction. On December 3, 2024, the de facto Prime Minister, Irakli Kobakhidze, commented on the protests among public servants, stating: "We will respond to everyone's actions."[53] Similarly, Tbilisi Mayor and Georgian Dream General Secretary Kakha Kaladze responded to the protests of municipal employees by announcing: " Last week, we announced reorganization at the City Hall. Well, that's self-lustration."[54]

The amendments strip public servants of legal protections and completely dismantle the public service reforms that had been implemented over several years. These reforms were a key factor in the EU’s decision to grant Georgia visa-free travel. By abolishing these protections, the government erases the principle of a politically neutral public service, replacing it with one that serves only the partisan interests of Georgian Dream. This marks another step toward state capture.[55]

The adopted changes redefine the appointment and dismissal procedures for public officials. Specifically:

• Middle-ranking officials—heads of departments and services, as well as their deputies—are no longer considered permanent public servants.
• From now on, they will be employed under administrative contracts, meaning that agency heads or ministers can dismiss them at any time with only one month’s notice and for any reason.
• If a new agency head or minister is appointed, all middle-ranking officials will automatically lose their positions. This means that every new minister will have full discretion to appoint loyal department heads and deputies, disregarding professional qualifications.

This change is designed to intimidate public servants and sends a direct message: if they continue to criticize the government, they can lose their jobs at any time, and legal protections will no longer shield them.

By eroding employment protections in this way, the government completely disregards the fundamental principles of a professional public service. Additionally, these amendments endanger institutional memory, as constantly changing staff will struggle to accumulate and retain the necessary administrative expertise. The role of department heads should be independent and should not be tied to political appointments or dismissals. Instead, the new structure ensures that middle-ranking officials are entirely dependent on the whims of their superiors, undermining the principles of an impartial and professional civil service.

The amendments also reinstate the practice of appointing public servants without a competitive process. New agency heads and ministers will now have the power to directly appoint individuals to various leadership positions (e.g., department heads, deputies, service heads, etc.) through contracts, without an open competition. This increases the risks of nepotism and undermines the independence and professionalism of the civil service.

Another significant change concerns the performance evaluation system for public servants:

• Instead of an annual assessment, public servants will now be evaluated twice a year.
• If they receive two consecutive negative evaluations, they will be dismissed within one year instead of two.
• Agency heads will now have the power to override the evaluations made by immediate supervisors. This means that even if a direct superior gives a positive evaluation, the agency head can alter it to justify dismissal or a 20% salary reduction.

Additionally, public servants dismissed due to "reorganization" will no longer be reinstated even if they win a court case. Instead, they will simply be placed in a "reserve" list. This means that even if a court rules their dismissal unlawful, they will not be returned to their previous positions, effectively eliminating legal protection against wrongful termination. If a court determines that a dismissal due to reorganization was unlawful, the dismissed employee will not have the right to demand reinstatement. Instead, under amendments passed on April 1, 2025, they will only receive one month’s lost wages as compensation.

The timeline of these worsening conditions shows the government's clear intention to strip away job security for public servants:

• December 13, 2024: Public servants could be dismissed with just one month’s prior notice.[56]
• February 2025: An amendment reduced this period to three days and mandated two months' compensation for dismissed employees.[57]
• April 1, 2025: Georgian Dream reduced compensation from two months to one month, further weakening job security.[58]

On April 1, 2025, Georgian Dream also passed amendments to the Law on Combating Corruption, restricting public servants—including judges of common and constitutional courts—from engaging in scientific, academic, or creative work.

• Judges of common courts will need permission from the High Council of Justice to conduct research or teach.
• Constitutional Court judges will require approval from the Plenary of the Constitutional Court to engage in academic work.

Public officials will be able to engage in scientific, pedagogical, and creative activities only with the written consent of the head of the relevant institution or an authorized person/body as determined by law. The only exceptions to this rule are the President of Georgia, members of the Georgian Parliament, and members of the government.

The restriction on scientific and pedagogical activities for public officials is not only aimed at limiting their rights but also at controlling the academic space.

All these changes, apart from being extremely problematic for each individual public official, are also harmful to the state as a whole. Through these changes, Georgian Dream has turned the civil service, which should be based on principles of professionalism and neutrality, into an instrument of party obedience. In the long run, this will create a shortage of highly qualified professional personnel in the public sector.

It is noteworthy that the consequences of these draconian changes are already evident and are actively being used against critical public officials. Recently, many public servants have been dismissed en masse—particularly those who signed protest statements, demanded compliance with Article 78 of the Constitution, participated in protest rallies, or publicly condemned, including on social media, state-sponsored violence against peaceful demonstrators.[59]

Public officials have been dismissed for discriminatory reasons from the National Agency of Public Registry, Tbilisi City Hall departments, the National Agency for Crime Prevention, Non-Custodial Sentences, and Probation, the Central Election Commission, the Ministry of Defense, the Adjara Department of Tourism and Resorts, the Parliament of Georgia, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the House of Justice, the Public Safety Management Center 112, the municipalities of Rustavi and Adigeni, the National Agency of State Property, the Administration of the Government of Georgia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the National Forensics Bureau, the Legal Aid Service, the Personal Data Protection Service, and the Youth Self-Government of Mestia Municipality.[60]

The repressions in the public sector, together with the amendments to the "Law on Public Service," aim to make the civil service more subordinate to the ruling party's vertical structure. The goal of such political repressions is to ensure that public servants—both officials and contract employees—refrain from expressing political opinions or engaging in active civic participation out of fear of losing their jobs.

These actions collectively contain elements of the crime defined under Article 156 of the Georgian Criminal Code, which refers to persecution carried out through the abuse of official position.

Additionally, it is important to note that the Minister of Foreign Affairs from "Georgian Dream," Maka Bochorishvili, introduced illegal and unconstitutional changes to the rules governing the diplomatic service, fully subordinating it to party interests.[61] These repressive changes are a response to the open criticism of "Georgian Dream’s" actions by employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and are intended to continue the ongoing repression against public officials.

10. Abolition of the Public Service Bureau

Starting from April 1, 2025, the Public Service Bureau has been abolished and will no longer function. This was announced by the Government Administration at the beginning of February.[62]
In connection with this, non-governmental organizations issued a joint statement. In their statement, they mentioned that "against the backdrop of current events and protests from public servants, the liquidation of the Public Service Bureau is yet another repressive step, not only for the Bureau’s employees but for any public servant."[63]

The reasons provided for the liquidation of the Bureau are "rationalization of management" and "optimization of expenses." However, no such document assessing this has been made known to either the public or the Bureau’s employees. It is significant that one of the most extreme forms of repression against public servants, in response to their protests, has been applied against the very institution whose direct role was to establish and maintain a dignified, professional, and neutral environment in the public service. The Public Service Bureau was one of the most important institutions in Georgia’s path toward European integration.[64]

It is also noteworthy that this highly harmful decision was made by the illegitimate government behind the backs of the public, without any rational justification. Even the institutions directly affected by this decision were not notified about it. This is yet another repressive step against an independent and impartial public service and against public servants who are critically inclined toward the government's policies, further distancing the country from democratic processes and its European future.

11. Government’s Refusal to Register Public Servants' Trade Union

In November 2024, representatives from about 20 state and public institutions formed an initiative group with the goal of establishing a trade union for public servants. Among the group members were employees from the Administration of the President of Georgia, the Parliament, the Constitutional Court, the National Bank, the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Justice’s various public institutions, the Ministry of Finance’s Revenue Service, the Ministry of Education and Science’s several public institutions, Tbilisi City Hall and the City Council, various municipalities, the Public Service Bureau, the Legal Aid Service, and other public institutions.

In December 2024, the "Independent Trade Union of Public Servants – Article 78 of the Constitution" was officially established. One of the main reasons for its creation was the decision by the "Georgian Dream" government to suspend negotiations on joining the European Union in violation of Article 78 of the Constitution, as well as the large-scale repression against public servants who voiced loud protests against this decision.

On December 25, 2024, 36 founders of the trade union applied to the Public Registry Agency for registration. All necessary documents were submitted, including the founding agreement and the bylaws. It is noteworthy that among the founders were former and current employees of the Public Registry, who had sufficient experience to properly prepare the documents.

Despite the fact that such documentation was sufficient for the registration of other trade unions, including the "Independent Trade Union of Managers, Professional Accountants, and Auditors of Georgia" and the "Professional Union of Tower Crane Operators," the Public Registry suspended the registration process for the trade union on December 26, 2024, and demanded additional documentation. Eventually, on January 28, 2025, a decision was made to terminate the registration process.

To confirm the biased decision of the Public Registry, the trade union submitted a new application for registration on February 18, 2025. However, this time the union’s name was not approved, and the registration process was once again suspended.

In this context, it becomes clear that Georgian Dream is afraid of the creation of an independent trade union for public servants, as its existence contradicts the government’s goal of establishing a politically obedient civil service that will unconditionally carry out the government's illegal orders.

The decisions taken against the trade union are in violation not only of the Constitution and legislation of Georgia but also of the country's international obligations, including the three conventions of the International Labour Organization (N87, N98, and N151), which guarantee the freedom of trade unions.

Therefore, on February 26, the "Independent Trade Union of Public Servants – Article 78 of the Constitution" filed a complaint with the International Labour Organization.

12. The Anti-Corruption Bureau Blocking the Asset Declarations of Public Officials Website

For several months now, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the very agency responsible for implementing the new version of the “Agents” law, has effectively blocked the website for the asset declarations of public officials. For 15 years, this website provided access to information regarding the income and expenses of any public official, including, of course, for organizations monitoring the anti-corruption process, such as Transparency International Georgia. As a result, any interested party could verify the legality and compliance of each public official’s income and expenses.

By blocking the website, the already closed government system, which independent media and civil society constantly refer to in discussions about corruption, has become even more closed and vulnerable to corrupt schemes. It is significant that this extremely anti-democratic measure was taken by the organization tasked with implementing the mission of Georgian Dream to destroy civil society.

13. Amendments to the "Law on Professional Theaters"

On April 1, 2025, the Georgian Dream Parliament supported a bill initiated by several deputies from Georgian Dream and the pseudo-oppositional People’s Power,[65] aiming to reform the theater management system by abolishing the two-tier leadership model. Currently, artistic and administrative responsibilities are divided between the artistic director and the theater director. The new legislation will combine these roles, giving the theater director sole leadership, who will control both creative and operational matters. Supporters of the bill argue that the existing system is outdated and inefficient, hindering theaters in addressing modern challenges effectively.[66]

The amendments also introduce significant changes to the process of appointing and dismissing theater directors. On one hand, it establishes a competitive selection process to attract talented young individuals, but on the other hand, it grants the Minister of Culture and municipal mayors broad discretionary powers in appointing theater directors. One of the most controversial aspects is the immediate dismissal of all current state and municipal theater directors upon the law’s enactment. Dismissed directors will have ten days to apply for reappointment, but if the position is unavailable, they will receive a compensation equivalent to three months’ salary. Critics see these measures as an attempt to consolidate political control over theaters and restrict artistic independence.[67]

It is noteworthy that the Vaso Abashidze Theater went on strike after actor Andro Chichinadze was arrested on criminal charges for participating in a pro-European demonstration.[68] In response, Georgian artists staged a performance on January 23, published a manifesto, and announced a tour across Georgia in support of freedom and citizen engagement. They have already visited several cities, including Batumi, Kutaisi, and Gori, to hold discussions and raise awareness.[69]

14. Amendments to the Electoral Code

In addition to the aforementioned repressive legislative changes, in December 2024, the Georgian Dream Parliament also adopted amendments to Georgia’s Electoral Code.

Stewart Dickson, the Speaker of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, noted: "I am concerned about the proposed amendments to the Electoral Code concerning the electoral system, which are being considered by the Georgian Parliament under an expedited procedure. If adopted, these changes, which are planned to be implemented in the 2025 local elections, will reduce the proportion of municipal council members elected by the proportional system, while increasing the number of majoritarian members, partly reverting to the situation in 2017."[70]

These amendments aim to annul all the changes made in the municipal electoral system in 2021, which were adopted based on a political party agreement brokered by European Council President Charles Michel.[71] Georgian Dream has repeatedly violated agreements reached through Charles Michel’s mediation, which had once saved the country from a political crisis. Georgian Dream is now willing to adopt any changes that benefit it in order to maintain power at any cost.

In a letter dated December 23, 2024, the President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe requested the Venice Commission’s opinion on amendments made to the Organic Law “Election Code of Georgia,” concerning local elections.[72]

The Central Election Commission announced the date for the municipal elections (elections for the representative body of the municipality - the City Council - and the Mayor of a self-governing city/community) as October 4, 2025.[73]

15. Removal of “Gender” from the Legislative Space

On February 24, members of the Georgian Dream party, along with the pseudo-oppositional party People’s Power, introduced a bill aimed at removing the terms “gender” and “gender identity” from Georgian legislation.[74] The legislative package was supported by the Georgian Dream’s parliament on April 2. As a result of the amendments, the name of the “Gender Equality Law” was changed to the “Law on Equality between Women and Men.” According to the explanatory note of the bill, gender is described as an “artificially created term” that was introduced into Georgian legislation due to foreign influence and lobbying.

The removal of the term “gender” from the legislative space is part of the state's policy of inequality, which is an undemocratic, illegal action directed against the development of society. This change is extremely harmful in terms of eliminating discrimination and guaranteeing the right to equality in Georgia.[75]

The removal of gender-related terms and principles of gender equality from legislation will worsen the status of women’s rights, while transgender, non-binary, and gender-nonconforming individuals will be left completely vulnerable to discrimination, violence, and social exclusion.[76] This change is yet another expression of how sharply the state’s development course has been altered by the “Georgian Dream,” gradually undermining all the standards that were established over the years on Georgia's European path.

These amendments were also adopted on April 2 in the third reading.[77]