The legal battle against the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, often referred to as the 'Russian Law,' continues in the Constitutional Court. After the law was adopted, discussions about filing a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court became more active among political circles and civil society. On May 30, Georgian civil society organizations announced that they were preparing a constitutional lawsuit to be submitted to the court. Finally, in July, three different lawsuits were filed with the court. The first was President Salome Zourabichvili’s lawsuit, submitted on July 15. This was followed by a general lawsuit from civil society organizations, announced on July 17, and a joint lawsuit signed by 38 opposition MPs. In the lawsuit submitted by the President, which the court has accepted, it is argued that the law is unconstitutional and in violation of Article 78 of the Georgian Constitution. The lawsuit also challenges a number of norms of the law that infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Through this action, the President is seeking both a suspension of the law and its ultimate repeal. The President's lawsuit is precedential because: It marks the first instance in which the President has brought a case before the Constitutional Court. To date, the Constitutional Court has not yet adjudicated a case concerning the violation of Article 78 of the Constitution, which pertains to integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures. On the other hand, the lawsuits brought by civil society and media organizations highlight that the law infringes upon the right of individuals to associate with like-minded people to engage in beneficial activities and assist others. These lawsuits argue that by enacting the Russian law, the government is fostering a hostile and demeaning environment, thereby threatening the exercise of rights and freedoms related to association, expression, and other fundamental liberties. Civil society and media organizations, in conjunction with their lawsuit, are also calling for a temporary suspension of the implementation of the unconstitutional norms of the law until the court reaches a final decision. The lawsuit filed by the opposition MPs became known on July 29. The deputies are requesting the Constitutional Court to analyze the Law "On Transparency of Foreign Influence" in relation to Articles 22 (freedom of association) and 78 (integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures) of the Constitution and to annul it. They also request that the court implement a temporary mechanism to suspend the enforcement of the law until a final decision is reached. Under the legislation, the review period for a constitutional claim or submission should not exceed 9 months, beginning from the date the claim or submission is registered with the Constitutional Court. Additionally, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court may extend this period by up to 2 months in special cases. It's important to note that the expiration of this period does not automatically result in a court decision on the claim or submission, as the law does not specify a deadline for the court to issue a final decision.

Following the Venice Commission's conclusion urging the Georgian government to repeal the current form of the Russian law on the transparency of foreign influence, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has issued an urgent legal assessment. According to this assessment, the law "contains serious flaws that make it incompatible with international human rights standards." The evaluation calls on the Georgian authorities to revoke the law. According to the assessment, the primary justification for the law focuses on "foreign influence" and "transparency." The document suggests that, in response to "foreign influence," it would have been possible to use less intrusive measures, such as professional lobbying or clearly defined regulations on expressing foreign interests that impact the public decision-making process. These measures would be distinctly different from the daily activities of civil society organizations. The document also notes that "transparency" is and has been the main justification for the adoption or initiation of similar laws in countries such as the Russian Federation, Hungary and Kyrgyzstan, as well as the Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the assessment, general guidelines on the public interest regarding the legality of civil sector financing, without an analysis of the risks of the non-governmental sector's involvement in crimes such as corruption and money laundering, as well as specific, well-founded threats to national security, cannot serve as a legitimate basis for limiting the right to association. The assessment highlights that the explanatory note of the law does not clarify whether the authors conducted a thorough review of existing legislation to determine if their objectives could be met through current laws or by enhancing them, including financial or tax regulations. Additionally, ODIHR's evaluation points out that the explanatory note lacks an impact assessment, particularly failing to analyze the potential effects on the rights of association, press, and expression. The assessment emphasizes that the examples cited in the explanatory note such as the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and Australia's Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act, differ fundamentally from the objectives and scope of the Georgian law. According to the analysis, while these laws mandate public registration for organizations directly involved in advocacy and lobbying on behalf of foreign governments, they do not categorize civil society or media organizations as foreign representatives merely because they receive funding from abroad. The analysis focuses on the existence of a discriminatory approach to organizations based on the origin of their funding. According to the document, discriminatory treatment against specific categories of organizations or associations based on their funding sources should be considered from the perspective of sectoral equity. This means that the regulations applied to these associations should not be more stringent than those applied to commercial establishments or businesses in general. ODIHR suggests that because the law fails to adequately justify differing treatment based on funding sources, it may be considered discriminatory. The assessment also asserts that imposing new obligations on organizations receiving funding from foreign sources imposes certain restrictions on the exercise of the right to association. Moreover, disclosing foreign funding poses the risk of stigmatization for these organizations. Furthermore, the analysis highlights that the term "foreign power," given its broad definition, encompasses international and intergovernmental organizations, including those of which Georgia is a member and contributor. Hence, under the mentioned law, these organizations may also be classified as foreign powers. As a result, organizations receiving funding from them, such as the United Nations, would be regarded as representatives of foreign interests. According to the document, the state's authority to request any personal or confidential information from any private or legal entity within the monitoring framework, including details about ethnic origin, political, religious, or other beliefs, is deemed excessive and violates the right to privacy. Considering all aspects discussed, the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights calls upon Georgia to repeal the law. The release of the assessment by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) sparked mixed reactions within the country. Chairman of the Parliament, Shalva Papuashvili, alleged that the report was authored by Mikheil Saakashvili's lawyer, Jeremy McBride. However, ODIHR stated that the assessment was prepared by the organization's internal experts, and McBride was not involved in its creation.

MATTHEW MILLER, DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON : „The United States condemns the Kremlin-inspired “foreign influence” legislation advanced in Georgia’s parliament earlier today and the false narrative government officials have adopted to defend it. Members of the ruling party have been clear that the intent of the law is to silence critical voices and destroy Georgia’s vibrant civil society, which serves as a critical check on government in any democratic nation“.  More… source: www.state.gov

Georgia is a medium-risk country for CSOs, activists, and human rights defenders, according to the findings of the CSO Meter 2023 assessment. “2023 was somewhat turbulent for Georgian civil society. On 14th December, Georgia obtained European Union (EU) candidate country status. This is a great achievement for the country and its people who have repeatedly chosen to be a part of the European family. Considering this trajectory, the suggested draft law about ‘foreign agents’ in the beginning of the year raised great concerns. (....) T he draft law triggered widespread protests, attracting a diverse group of demonstrators, including young people, students, and community organisers, who voiced their opposition to the law. Law enforcement responded with force, deploying tear gas, water cannons, physical confrontation and mass arrests, provoking criticism for their use of disproportionate measures against peaceful protesters. In light of these developments, the governing party made the decision to retract the proposed legislation shortly thereafter, attributing this action to their intention to actively include the public and provide a more comprehensive explanation of the law’s objectives once heightened emotions had faded.  Nevertheless, the consequences of these events have had an enduring and detrimental effect on the state-civic sector relationship, which has yet to be restored”, mentioned in the report. The civil society environment in Georgia exhibited a modest degree of transformation in relation to the previous year, as it continued to grapple with a multitude of obstacles. The overall country score remained the same as in 2022 (4.8 out of 7), as did the overall country scores in law (5.2) and practice (4.3). what has changed? Several areas noted deteriorations in score. Area 3 (Access to Funding) deteriorated in practice from 5.3 in 2022 to 5.1 in 2023 and Area 4 (Freedom of Peaceful Assembly) deteriorated in practice from 3.9 in 2022 to 3.8 in 2023. There have been negative developments in Area 8 (State Duty to Protect) in which the score in practice deteriorated from 3.9 in 2022 to 3.8 in 2023 and in Area 10 (State-CSO Cooperation) in which the score in practice deteriorated from 3.9 in 2022 to 3.8 in 2023 The two areas with the highest overall scores remain the same as in 2022: Area 1 (Freedom of Association) with 6.1 out of 7) and Area 2 (Equal Treatment) with 5.6 out of 7, followed by Area 6 (Freedom of Expression) and Area 11 (Digital Rights) which both have the same overall score as last year, 4.9. Although Area 7 (Right to privacy) in the only area in which an increase in the score in legislation was ecorded this year (as a result of Parliament adopting the new Law on Personal Data Protection, the score rose from 4.6 to 4.7), the area remains one of the three lowest-scoring areas in 2023, together with Area 9 (State Support) and Area 10 (CSO-State Cooperation). All score See more - CSO Meter 2023 This report was prepared by the Civil Society Institute in partnership with the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) and the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI). The ‘CSO Meter: A Compass to Conducive Environment and CSO Empowerment’ project is implemented by ECNL.

The European Commission will evaluate the progress of fulfilling the 12 priorities defined for granting the candidate status to Georgia in a month approximately. Before that, under the leadership of the Open Society Georgia Foundation, 9 civil society organizations prepared their final assessment document – EU CANDIDACY CHECK which reflects the progress achieved by the Georgian authorities in this context, as well as the current state of play and the steps to be implemented in the future. Status More… Source: osgf.ge

Under the leadership of the Open Society Georgia Foundation, 8 civil society organizations presented the fourth edition of an assessment document – EU CANDIDACY CHECK, which reflects the progress achieved by the Georgian authorities in this context until the period of June 15, 2023, as well as the current state of play and the steps to be implemented in the future.  According to CSOs’ assessments, at this stage, one priority is fully implemented, two priorities are mostly fulfilled, five priorities are partially fulfilled, and four priorities defined by the European Union are to be fulfilled. see more... source: osgf.ge

Georgia is a medium-risk country for CSOs, activists, and human rights defenders, according to the findings of the CSO Meter 2022 assessment. The report does not reflect current reality; it examines occurrences from January to November 2022 and evaluates civil society's living environment. As a result, the CSO meter of 2022 enables us to grasp the environment "yesterday" and compare it to the current situation. The existing environment in Georgia has been allocated 4.8 points out of a maximum of 7 points (the legislative environment is evaluated with 5.2 points and practice with 4.4 points). what has changed?  Despite the fact that there were no events in the reporting period of 2022 that significantly changed the living environment of CSOs in comparison to the previous year, the report highlights the increased rate of verbal attacks against the public sector and the accompanying initiatives, which, in turn, indicate the livelihood of CSOs and the potential for environmental degradation. The doubling of the registration price for organizations, major changes in Georgian law affecting enterprises, and challenges detected at the stage of creating a bank account all had a negative influence, and scores declined in the following directions when compared to the previous period: freedom of association (scoring in the legal component reduced from 6.2 to 6.1) the right to equality (scoring in the practical component reduced from 5.4 to 5.3), the right to privacy (the practice component score fell from 3.1 to 3.0). Outline of legal standards  The standard of freedom of association obtained the highest score of 6.1 on the 7-point rating method. And the greatest concerns with regard to the level of violability of private life were detected, resulting in a low indication of 3.8. Right to association – Total score: 6.1 (6.1 for legislation and 6.0 for practice). The biggest negative impact is the doubling of the price of registering legal entities, as well as the introduction of new, unspecified procedural requirements due to changes in the law on Enrepreneurship. The amendments pertain to the registration of newly formed CSOs as well as requiring existing CSOs to update their registered data in accordance with the new requirements by January 1, 2024; else, the organization's registration may be cancelled.  The key good improvement is that all legal entities can now communicate with public structures using the individual online platform for correspondence and communication. Equal treatment – Total score: 5.6 (5.8 for legislation and 5.3 for practice). The main negative change: some cases identified during the reporting period indicate that financial institutions (banks) set different, complex requirements for organizations related to the jurisdiction of another country when opening a bank account, which complicates, prolongs, and in some cases results in a refusal to open a bank account. The right to participate in decision-making – Score total: 4.8 (legislation 5.3, practice 4.3). The biggest negative change was that the government hindered participation of certain watchdog organizations that questioned the government's policies to operate. This aspect prohibited organizations from fully engaging in participatory processes or allowed their participation only in procedures where their involvement powers were limited.  The key beneficial change was the enhancement of the institutional regulatory framework; specifically, the instruction on holding public consultations was adopted, establishing the importance of ensuring public review of public documents before they are generated. Freedom of Expression – Total score: 4.9 (5.6 for legislation and 4.1 for practice). The biggest negative change was that several vague legislative proposals went into law during the reporting period, threatening to curtail freedom of expression. The Law on Broadcasting, is one example. Right to privacy – Score total: 3.8 (legislation 4.6, practice 3.0).  The biggest negative change: Parliament amended the Code of Criminal Procedure in the summer of 2022, allowing surveillance investigations into an extra 27 offences. As a result, 75 less serious crimes are included in this list. Among them are offenses such as illegally raising the Georgia state flag. CSO METER – COUNTRY REPORT, 2022

New political movement announced legislative proposal to regulate CSO foreign funding. People’s Power, a newly established political movement1 called for a “strict legal framework” on CSO foreign funding. This came in response to the U.S. Foreign Relations Committee’s recent hearing, which discussed Georgia’s democratic backsliding and questioned whether the U.S. should reconsider its policy towards Georgia.  The movement claimed that U.S. funding goes mainly to Georgian civil society organisations, which inherently represent a “threat” to Georgia’s sovereignty . The exact nature of the CSO funding proposal is not known yet; however, People’s Power representatives state that they will base these regulations on the “best Western practices”, specifically mentioning the U.S Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). FARA was originally enacted in 1938 primarily to counter Nazi propaganda , but has been repeatedly weaponized to target nonprofits, activists, and others in the US too. The ruling party chairperson Irakli Kobakhidze also responded to People Power’s initiative, by stating, “We will see what it is, how it corresponds to Western practices, and we will discuss.”  The announced legislative proposal for CSO foreign funding comes amid increased verbal attacks on the civil society sector from government officials and pro-government media outlets, alleging partisan biases and a lack of financial transparency and accountability among Georgian watchdog organisations.  Foreign funding constitutes a major financial resource for Georgian CSOs  This type of ambiguous initiatives that put forward strict legislative regulations on CSO foreign funding, coupled with continuous attacks on CSOs, and restricting the participation of critical CSOs in decision-making processes repeat shrinking civic space scenarios from other countries.  Apart from, being a warning sign for the potentially deteriorating CSO environment, this process potentially compromises Georgia’s aspirations of becoming an EU candidate state. Especially, in light of the 2020 European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling, which established that restrictions imposed by Hungary on the financing of civil organisations by foreign persons contradict the EU law. source: csometer.info

The European Center for Non-Commercial Law (ECNL) has published the 2021 CSO Meter Eastern Partnership Regional Report. It assesses the living environment of civil society, human rights defenders, and activists. According to the report, the living environment of civil society organizations working in the Eastern Partnership countries was significantly affected by war, emergencies, pandemics, and a difficult political environment. Accordingly, certain restrictions followed their operations both at the legislative and practical level. Despite everything, in some directions, positive changes are also observed, such as the improvement of the state funding processes in Armenia and Ukraine, taking steps towards cooperation between the government and CSOs in Moldova, a new strategy of civil society in Ukraine. The report analyzes and assesses the operation of civil society in six countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine) according to 11 key areas, such as freedom of association, participation in the decision-making process, access to funding, etc. The report covers the period from September 2020 to December 2021 and is based on each country's 2021 report published in May. Compared to the previous reports, there are innovations in the 2021 report: The digital rights area has been added to the existing (10) legal standards and the scoring system has been created. 11 legal standards were assessed using a 7-point system (the lowest point is 1 — representing an extremely unfavorable, authoritarian environment; and 7 points — the most favorable environment). Out of the 6 countries of the Eastern Partnership, the living environment (legislation and practice) of CSOs in Ukraine was evaluated with the highest score, which was caused by the following circumstances: Existing, favorable conditions for freedom of association There is a higher degree of equality between businesses and CSOs than in other EaP countries. The better degree of participation, which enables CSOs to participate in the decision-making process; There is a well-developed cooperation system between CSOs and the government. The environment in Belarus was assessed with the lowest score, where freedom was restricted in many ways and civil society was heavily impacted by persecution, sanctions, forced liquidation of CSOs, etc. Key trends According to the CSO meter, five key trends were identified: Emergencies (COVID-19 and conflict) have restricted civil liberties, which has had a lasting impact on the living environment of civil society. The digitization process has developed faster than the corresponding protection mechanisms and digital rights. CSOs are still under attack; the field is stigmatized; and they are often targets of surveillance. Certain restrictions on access to funding and complex requirements for obtaining it AML/CTF measures still continue to create some burdens for CSOs. Key priorities  The report indicates the areas that need to be improved with the support of the European Union. It refers to both the legislative environment and practice. Guarantee freedom of association and increase access to financing. Especially in Belarus and Azerbaijan, freedom of registration and operation of CSOs should be allowed without any interference. Restrictions on foreign and other funding mechanisms should be removed. State support should be developed as an important source of sustainability for CSOs. The state must protect CSOs from unjustified attacks and interference in their activities so that they can operate and implement their civil liberties. There is a need for a proper and effective investigation of attacks on CSOs and activists. The state should ensure the participation of CSOs in the decision-making process, especially in times of crisis. The multilateral relationship between CSOs and the government is one of the most significant components of the development of the working environment for CSOs. 2021 CSO meter-regional report Georgia's CSO meter-report for 2021 The CSO Meter 2021 regional report was produced with the financial support of the European Union by European Center for Non-Commercial Law (ECNL). Georgia’s country report was prepared by the Civil Society Institute in partnership with the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) and the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI).

We Will never return to the USSR! – Watch to video about the USSR consequences for Georgia… 20% of Georgian territory is occupied by Russia – and the creeping occupation continues… #RussiaisanOccupier #NoOccupation

Mariam Svimonishvili, the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Human Rights’ Program Director speaks about the freedom of expression and assembly which remain a problem in Georgia (GEO).

There is still an ingrained tradition of inheriting the real estate in Georgia, which favors men and leaves many women in the open, while the constitution and legislation provide for equal rights. More (GEO)