'Georgian Dream' has proposed another repressive amendment to the Law on Grants, significantly expanding the extent and means of state control over civil society and media organizations. The draft legislation grants the government broad, opaque, and unrestricted powers to exercise content-based oversight of organizational activities, rendering continued operation of many associations practically unfeasible. This amendment, in conjunction with other laws limiting the right to freedom of association, poses a severe threat to civil society in Georgia and undermines democratic structures and networks across the country.

Georgian Dream re-initiated another round of amendments to the Law on Grants on May 21, just one month after the amendments of April 16. The initial amendments to the draft law merely identified the donor organizations or/and entities that would be exempt from the requirement to obtain government approval prior to the execution of grant agreements. It explicitly stated, among others, that this obligation would not apply to grants issued under the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program, as well as the Erasmus+ program.[1] However, before the draft law was presented for its first reading in the plenary session, its original content and scope underwent significant and unexpected changes. Additional provisions were introduced to tighten control over the disbursement of foreign grants, thereby imposing even stricter limitations on the ability of domestic organizations to receive international funding.

According to the draft law[2]:

• The scope of grants now includes the fields of defense and security.
• The list of foreign grant-issuing entities has been expanded to include “other international organizations.”
• The definition of a grant is also broadened to encompass technical assistance provided by foreign grantors in the form of technology, specialized knowledge, skills, expertise, and/or other types of support.
• Written documentation justifying the issuance of a grant is refined to include written agreements, regardless of form or designation, and irrespective of whether they consist of one or multiple related documents, as well as the donor's written decision.
• Exceptions to the government’s prior mandatory approval requirement now also include grants issued within the framework of Germany’s Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Creative Europe programs between Georgia and the European Union.
• For budgetary institutions, the issuance of foreign grants by donors is governed by the Local Self-Government Code and/or the procedures defined by relevant normative acts of the government.
• It is specified that the procedures and conditions for obtaining government approval for foreign grants are to be determined by the government itself.

First and foremost, attention must be drawn to the frequency of legislative amendments made to the Law on Grants and the use of expedited procedures, which place thousands of civil, media, trade union, academic, community, and other types of associations in a state of legal uncertainty, subjecting their activities to a continuously evolving cycle of new restrictions. A review of the proposed changes shows that 'Georgian Dream’s' repressive stance against civil society is intensifying, aiming to control every aspect of international cooperation, even those related to technical assistance.

The law’s ambiguous and overly general language, coupled with the absence of objective standards regarding what determines government approval for grant issuance, reveals an intent to arbitrarily and unjustifiably control the work of associations. This framework places civil society organizations under sweeping government control, creating a high risk of selective enforcement and punitive targeting. Initially, the requirement for government pre-approval was limited to grant agreements of medium or long duration, extending across the entire term and scope of the funding arrangement. Now, under the new amendments, any form of assistance, whether technical or substantive, even temporary and marginal, provided outside a formal grant agreement, also requires government pre-approval. It remains unclear how cooperation is to be interpreted under these provisions, especially regarding vague categories like “other forms of assistance” and the “written decision of the donor”—terms that may be construed to encompass nearly all international partnerships. This not only leads to a total oversight but also imposes restrictions inconsistent with the purpose of the law. Furthermore, holding organizations legally accountable under such vague and overbroad standards runs counter to core principles of legal certainty and proportionality.

Notably, the draft law designates the government as the approving authority for the issuance of such foreign grants, which constitutes an unconstitutional regulation involving the executive branch in the activities of civil society—an area that is, by nature, self-regulating and autonomous. Moreover, even two months after the adoption of the law, the government has yet to draft the by-laws that would establish the criteria, procedures, and timelines for granting approval. As a result, a large number of civil society organizations will effectively be cut off from access to financial resources.

The legislative changes in question render the continued operation of independent associations virtually impossible, both for international (donor) and local (recipient) organizations. In Georgia, where the economy is fragile and state institutions are not shielded from political or economic pressure, it is especially important to highlight that, for years, these very donor organizations have played a key role in supporting entire sectors of public interest, including human rights, social protection, healthcare, and cultural development; through both financial and technical assistance. Making access to such funding dependent on the government’s unchecked political will is nothing short of a targeted attempt to bankrupt these organizations and eradicate civil society from Georgia’s democratic landscape.

The initiated amendments clearly infringe upon the right to freedom of association, which is protected not only under the Constitution of Georgia but also under international treaties and conventions to which Georgia is a party. By introducing unrestricted barriers and sweeping control mechanisms over the essential conditions related to the funding and functioning of associations, these amendments undermine a fundamental democratic right. Such regulations run counter to the fundamental principles of civil society development in a democratic state, as well as to international recommendations (including those of the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR) which oblige states to promote, rather than hinder, freedom of association and access to legitimate sources of funding.

Freedom of association is a cornerstone of pluralistic and participatory democracy and serves as a foundation for the exercise of other civil and political rights. Numerous recommendations by the Venice Commission emphasize that civil society organizations play a crucial role in modern democratic societies. They enable citizens to unite around shared goals and/or to advance specific agendas. In carrying out their work, these organizations exercise not only the right to association, but also other civil and political rights - including freedom of expression, the right to privacy, and protection from discrimination. States, in turn, have corresponding obligations to respect, protect, and facilitate the ability of these organizations to exercise their rights.[3]

Accordingly, both the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights lay out very strict preconditions for restricting fundamental freedoms like freedom of association. Any law that imposes such restrictions must be formulated with sufficient clarity and foreseeability, must aim to achieve one of the narrowly defined legitimate purposes set out in these instruments, and must be demonstrably necessary in a democratic society. This necessity requires the existence of a 'pressing social need' and compliance with the principle of proportionality.[4] The proposed amendments to the Law on Grants, along with other recent legislative efforts by the 'Georgian Dream' party targeting civil society and media organizations, fail to satisfy any of these conditions. Invoking the protection of national sovereignty as a justification, 'Georgian Dream' is undermining core democratic foundations in a manner that is irreversible. Moreover, the party fails to substantiate any actual or imminent threat to sovereignty, thus failing to demonstrate the existence of a pressing social need that would warrant such sweeping restrictions.

The legal status of non-governmental organizations in Europe is addressed in Recommendation Rec (2007)14, which is issued by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The recommendation states that non-governmental organizations should be permitted to solicit and receive funding from a variety of sources, including public bodies in their own country, institutional or individual donors, other states, and multilateral agencies. However, the only legislative restrictions that should be enforced are those that pertain to customs control, currency operations, anti-money laundering, elections, and the financing of political parties.[5]

"The right of associations to freely access human, material and financial resources – from domestic, foreign, and international sources – is inherent in the right to freedom of association and essential to the existence and effective operations of any association."[6] This right is of significant importance to the operational effectiveness and existence of any association. The Venice Commission has recognized that it is permissible to mandate a high level of transparency in matters pertaining to foreign funding, and that the receipt of foreign funding may be legally restricted in certain cases (this usually pertains to political parties). However, the Commission has unequivocally reaffirmed that the ability to seek, receive, and utilize resources, including those from international and foreign sources, is a fundamental component of the 11 joint guidlines that support the right to freedom of association.[7]

Thus, the mere fact that civil society organizations receive foreign funding cannot, in itself, be considered a threat to national sovereignty. The state is required to identify and prove specific threats on a case-by-case basis, supported by concrete evidence. Furthermore, the broad mechanisms of blanket oversight fail to meet the necessary credibility threshold. Furthermore, the preceding analysis highlights that the proposed amendments suffer from significant deficiencies in legal foreseeability and cannot be considered a proportionate tool for achieving the aims articulated by Georgian Dream. As a result, the amendments impose comprehensive control over civil society operations, making it practically impossible for CSOs to carry out their work.

It is important to emphasize that the Georgian Dream party's sovereignty-based reasoning for regulating foreign funding rests on a flawed and overly restrictive interpretation of the concept of sovereignty. In the realm of contemporary international law, sovereignty is not perceived as an unqualified license for states to regulate internal affairs without constraint, but rather as a legal obligation that requires them to safeguard human rights, such as the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and participatory democracy. This type of misguided politicization of the concept of sovereignty is frequently observed in the discourse and policies of authoritarian regimes, including Russia and China. In these regimes, independent organizations are not perceived as a part of society, but rather as political opponents who are acting against the state and  are thus sought to be eliminated. Georgia's adoption of such restrictive legislation is particularly noteworthy in light of the fact that it coincides with a distinct shift in the country's foreign policy orientation. Hence, the 'Georgian Dream's' emerging political narrative now portrays Georgia's traditional Euro-Atlantic allies as threats to national sovereignty, a notion that enables the state to justify its repressive actions. Notably, Georgian Dream has made no mention in any public statement of the need to counter or ensure transparency regarding the influence of Russia or other hostile actors.

In conclusion, it is evident that the proposed amendments to the Law on Grants cannot be interpreted as a trivial technical adjustment to the current legislation. Rather, it represents a deliberate and systematic eroding of fundamental constitutional and international rights, such as the rights to freedom of association, freedom of expression, equality before the law, and the preservation of an autonomous civil space. Combined with other recently implemented legal measures that are detrimental to media organizations and civil society, these amendments are designed to paint critical thought and independent self-organized entities as threats to the state, with the ultimate aim of dismantling them. This represents an open rejection of the basic principles of democracy and a clear attempt to formalize a Russian-style authoritarian model in the country.

Share