The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional law matters, has criticized Georgia’s March 4 legislative amendments that restricted foreign funding and political activities. The Commission has warned that the legislation imposes disproportionate and unnecessary restrictions on the fundamental rights and political freedoms of the Georgian citizens.
In its newly adopted 24-page opinion, prepared at the request of the chairperson of the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the commission assessed the amendments adopted by the Georgian Dream-dominated parliament on March 4.
The legislative package imposes additional restrictions on receiving foreign funding, criminalizes so-called external lobbying, restricts political activities, imposes limits on businesses and introduces penalties for “systematic acts” directed at “establishing the perception” of the government’s illegitimacy.
The changes include amendments to the Law on Grants, Law on Political Associations, Criminal Code and Administrative Offenses Code. They have drawn widespread criticism over provisions that observers say are vaguely worded, open to arbitrary enforcement and restrictive of political participation.
In its opinion, the Venice Commission recalled its 2025 assessment, which concluded that Georgia’s legislative framework “risked undermining the rule of law, civic space and democratic freedoms” and recommended repealing restrictive legislation and improving the existing legal framework.
The Commission said the March 4 amendments failed to address those concerns.
“Rather than addressing the concerns identified in previous opinions, they further strengthen governmental control, broaden the scope of the restrictions and reinforce the legislative framework through extensive monitoring powers and criminal sanctions,” the opinion reads.
The commission warned that the cumulative effect of the restrictions could discourage individuals and organizations from exercising their fundamental freedoms, even when their activities are lawful.
“Faced with prior governmental control, extensive monitoring powers and the prospect of investigation, criminal prosecution and imprisonment, individuals and organisations may reasonably refrain from engaging in lawful activities protected by the Convention,” the commission said. “The exercise of freedoms of association and expression as well as the right to political participation is thereby likely to be curtailed, not only through direct prohibitions, but more importantly through the creation of a legal environment in which the risks associated with civic engagement become too great to assume.”
The commission raised concerns about the compatibility of the restrictions with international human rights standards, particularly the extensive use of criminal penalties for violations related to foreign funding and political activities.
“The Commission recommends strongly reconsidering the use of criminal-law sanctions in the framework of the procedures and breaches of obligations under the Law on grants, as well as for conduct involving the broad concept of ‘political matters concerning Georgia’, the activities of foreign legal entities, or transactions characterised as intended to circumvent the grant’s regime,” the opinion reads.
According to the commission, such conduct “should be dealt with by purely administrative means, accompanied by robust procedural safeguards.”
It added that even if Georgian authorities decide to retain criminal penalties, “it should be ensured, as a minimum, that criminal liability remains limited to situations where it is strictly necessary and proportionate, and that both the conduct attracting such sanctions and the applicable sanctions are precisely defined.”
The commission also challenged the legislation’s lack of legal certainty and foreseeability, warning that several key provisions are so broadly formulated that they could allow excessive discretion in their enforcement.
It identified the notions of “grant”, activities “relating to political matters”, “organisation representing the interests of a foreign power” and a “person with a declared party-political aim”, “establishing a perception of illegitimacy” or “harming the interests of the state”, as concepts that “are formulated in overly broad and imprecise terms, creating uncertainty as to the persons subject to the restrictions and conferring excessive discretion on the authorities.”
The commission recommended that these concepts be clarified and narrowly defined to ensure greater legal certainty and prevent arbitrary application.
Beyond the substance of the amendments, the Venice Commission criticized the legislative process and stressed the need for broader public participation in future lawmaking.
“The Venice Commission further considers that in the future the process of adopting legislation in Georgia must take an appropriately inclusive approach so as to ensure its legitimacy and broad acceptability,” the opinion reads.
It also stressed that the legislative process “should be conducted in a context of deliberation, the expedited procedures being the exception, involving and permitting the expression of the opinions of all relevant actors.”
In its concluding assessment, the commission rejected the argument that the amendments serve to protect Georgia’s sovereignty from foreign interference.
“In light of these conclusions, the Venice Commission is of the strong view that the legislation under examination does not pursue the aim of protecting and strengthening the sovereignty of Georgia and political parties from foreign influence and external interference,” the opinion reads.
“It rather imposes disproportionate and unnecessary restrictions on the fundamental rights and political freedoms of the Georgian citizens, concerning in particular freedom of association and expression and preventing the formation and survival of a political opposition – especially when considering the cumulative and systemic impact of the 4 March 2026 legislative framework as a whole, including recent amendments assessed in the Venice Commission Opinion on the amendments of 16 October 2025 to the Organic law on political associations of citizens and related laws.”
The commission further concluded that the legislation contradicts international standards on democracy and pluralism, warning that rather than protecting Georgia’s sovereignty, “the constitutional system and political parties from foreign influence and external interference, the legislation at stake risks undermining them profoundly.”
The Venice Commission also expressed regret over the Georgian authorities’ lack of engagement during the preparation of the opinion.
The March 4 Amendments
The legislative package adopted by the Georgian Dream-led disputed parliament on March 4 introduces sweeping restrictions on foreign funding, political participation and activities considered to be linked to foreign influence.
Under the amendments, the definition of a “grant” requiring government approval is significantly expanded to include technical assistance, free-of-charge assistance and funding transferred from foreign organizations to their local branches. The legislation also broadens the categories of grant recipients, including foreign-based organizations working on Georgia-related issues, and introduces criminal penalties for grant-related violations.
The amendments to the Law on Political Associations introduce eight-year bans on political party membership for individuals who have worked in foreign-funded organizations. They also replace the concept of a “declared electoral goal” with the broader notion of a “declared party-political goal,” potentially subjecting more individuals and organizations to financial restrictions applicable to political parties. Party leaders may also face criminal penalties for receiving foreign funding.
The package further criminalizes so-called external lobbying, introducing prison sentences of up to six years, and establishes penalties for businesses that “publicly carry out such political activity that is not related to [their] principal entrepreneurial activity.”
Another provision introduces an “extremism” offense carrying prison sentences of up to three years for “systematic acts” aimed at promoting nonrecognition of the government’s legitimacy.
The March amendments follow a series of earlier laws restricting foreign funding and civil society activities, including previous changes to the Law on Grants that introduced fines for receiving foreign funding without government approval.
They also follow Georgian Dream’s version of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which introduced prison sentences for foreign-funded entities and individuals who fail to register as foreign agents.
Also Read:
