Georgian Dream has initiated the use of authoritarian laws against Civil Society organizations and launched arbitrary and large-scale inspections, grossly violating the autonomy of Civil Society and Fundamental Rights

The ruling party, Georgian Dream, has already begun employing authoritarian legislation against civil society organizations and has launched extensive, arbitrary inspections. These actions constitute a grave interference in the internal autonomy of civil society organizations and manifest serious violations of the rights to freedom of association, expression, privacy, and equality.

On June 18 and 19, 2025, seven civil society organizations - Transparency International Georgia, Sapari, Civil Society Foundation, Economic Policy Research Center, Academy for the Future of Georgia, Media Development Foundation, and the Social Justice Center - received judicial orders compelling them to submit extensive legal, financial, technical, and personal information, covering the period from January 1, 2024, to the present. These orders lack an adequate legal basis and include an obligation to disclose all types of data, including personal and special category data concerning beneficiaries and third parties. It is expected that similar decisions will soon be issued against other civil society organizations, indicating that Georgian Dream is preparing to deploy punitive mechanisms granted by authoritarian laws on a mass scale.

Even a preliminary analysis of the motions filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the resulting judicial orders reveals that the legal procedures initiated are arbitrary and illegal, even under the framework of the authoritarian laws adopted by Georgian Dream. They represent severe violations of constitutional rights and international conventions protecting freedom of association. These developments threaten to severely disrupt the normal functioning of civil society and weaken the human rights, analytical, and social work that these organizations have carried out in Georgia for many years.

Description of the Process Initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau

On June 17 and 18, 2025, the above-listed civil society organizations received judicial orders issued by judges of the Administrative Chamber of Tbilisi City Court, which granted motions submitted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. These orders instruct commercial banks operating in Georgia, the Revenue Service, and the organizations themselves to submit legal, technical, and financial documentation. The court orders require the organizations to provide the Anti-Corruption Bureau with the following documents covering the period from January 1, 2024, to June 10, 2025:

1. All grant agreements entered into or currently in force, along with all related legal and financial documentation and detailed budgetary projections;
2. Information on activities carried out under these agreements, including their purpose, time, location, and details of participants - including beneficiaries' personally identifiable information (full name, ID number) - as well as photo/video documentation;
3. Narrative reports, correspondence, and communications related to the implementation of the projects or agreements;
4. Information regarding any natural or legal persons who had business relationships with the organizations or provided services.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau allowed only three days for the provision of this voluminous and sensitive information.

According to the court orders issued in respect of the above-mentioned organizations, the disclosure obligations are based on motions submitted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. As indicated in these motions, the Bureau is conducting an inquiry into the compliance of the activities of the named civil society organizations with the requirements set forth under the Law on the Fight Against Corruption, the Law on Grants, the Organic Law on Political Associations of Citizens, and the Law on the Registration of Foreign Agents. Within the framework of the procedures prescribed by these laws, the Anti-Corruption Bureau argues that it requires virtually all legal and financial documentation related to the activities of these organizations, as well as comprehensive information concerning third parties and beneficiaries, covering the period from 1 January 2024 to 10 June 2025.

In support of the necessity and lawfulness of its request, the Bureau’s motions invoke its general statutory powers, which authorize it to obtain any information necessary for the performance of its duties from both natural and legal persons, including special category personal data. Furthermore, the motions emphasize that the requested information is to be used for the following purposes:

1. a) monitoring the financial activities of political associations, electoral subjects, and individuals who have declared electoral objectives;
2. b) monitoring the receipt and disbursement of grants issued without prior governmental approval, as well as other actions related to this area;
3. c) implementation of measures envisaged by the Law of Georgia on the Registration of Foreign Agents.

The motions submitted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau fail to provide any explanation or justification as to why the requested information pertains specifically to the period from 1 January 2024 to 10 June 2025, nor do they substantiate the necessity and proportionality of disclosing each category of information requested—particularly the special category personal data concerning beneficiaries. This lack of reasoning is also reflected in the corresponding court orders, which merely refer to selected normative acts in a formalistic manner and do not provide any substantive assessment.

It is important to underscore that, unlike the Bureau's motions, the court orders do not reference the Law on the Registration of Foreign Agents (commonly referred to as “FARA”). Instead, the court compels civil society organizations to disclose information solely on the basis of the Organic Law on Political Associations of Citizens, the Law on Grants, and the Law on the Fight Against Corruption.

Even a preliminary assessment of the court orders reveals that the scope of information requested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau is excessively broad and encompasses virtually all types of data held by the organizations. The requests lack any purpose-specific limitations, such as focusing on particular areas of activity under investigation, and thereby grant state authorities unrestricted access to the internal operations and documentation of human rights organizations - including sensitive personal data of their beneficiaries, the confidentiality of which is essential for maintaining trust in these organizations.

Legal Analysis of the Bureau’s Requests and the Court Orders

An analysis of the court orders reveals that the decisions rendered are manifestly unsubstantiated and raise serious concerns from both a legal and human rights perspective. The grounds invoked by the court to authorize the scrutiny of civil society organizations are overly broad and general in nature, giving rise to a significant risk of arbitrary interference with the right to freedom of association.

The court relies on three principal legal grounds to justify the inspection of civil society organizations. However, each of these grounds is irrelevant, unsubstantiated, and unlawful. Specifically:

1. The first legal basis invoked by the court in its orders is Article 20¹³ of the Law of Georgia on the Fight Against Corruption, which authorizes the Anti-Corruption Bureau to request information from various natural and legal persons for the purpose of detecting and monitoring corruption within the public service. However, the court fails to specify whether the present case concerns alleged corruption within the public sector, nor does it establish any nexus between such allegations and the information held by civil society organizations. Consequently, reliance on this provision is entirely unlawful and legally unfounded.
2. The second legal basis cited is Article 34¹ of the Organic Law of Georgia on Political Associations of Citizens, which concerns the financial monitoring of electoral subjects or individuals with declared electoral objectives. Yet the court fails to substantiate how such monitoring is relevant to the request for information from civil society organizations that are not publicly recognized as entities with declared electoral aims. Therefore, the organizations in question do not fall within the scope of the provision’s applicability.

In this regard, the court also fails to justify the relevance of the substantive content of the information requested, including sensitive personal data concerning the organizations’ beneficiaries, in connection with the objectives of electoral finance monitoring. Moreover, the court does not assess the legitimacy or necessity of requesting information covering the period from 1 January 2024 to 10 June 2025, a timeframe that does not correspond with any established electoral cycle.

3. The third legal basis referenced in the court's orders is Article 6¹ of the Law of Georgia on Grants, which empowers the Anti-Corruption Bureau to monitor the receipt and disbursement of grants issued without prior governmental approval. However, the relevant amendments to the Law on Grants, which introduced the requirement for governmental consent for grants from foreign donors and empowered the Bureau to monitor such grants, only entered into force on 17 April 2025. Therefore, the court orders to approve the Bureau’s request for the disclosure of grant agreements dating from 1 January 2024 to 17 April 2025 is entirely unsubstantiated and legally irrelevant, as the legal basis had no retroactive applicability.

As demonstrated above, two out of the three legal grounds cited by the court bear no connection whatsoever to the activities of civil society organizations, while the third ground, related to the Law on Grants, appears equally irrelevant at this stage, given the date of entry into force of the applicable amendments. This clearly underscores the unlawful and unsubstantiated nature of the court’s decisions.

Moreover, the broad interpretation of the legal provisions cited in the court orders clearly contravenes the standards established by the European Court of Human Rights, which requires that any interference with the right to freedom of association be based on clearly defined and foreseeable legal norms. When fundamental human rights are at stake, granting public authorities unfettered discretion constitutes a grave violation of the principles of the rule of law and the foundations of a democratic society (Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 37083/03, § 57).

It is particularly concerning that the court orders fail to include any reasoning or reference regarding the legitimate aim pursued by the disclosure of personal data of beneficiaries held by the abovementioned organizations. This is especially problematic considering that the information in question is highly sensitive and includes special category data - such as individuals’ religious beliefs, sexual orientation, criminal records, or status as victims of violence—whose disclosure could result in significant harm to the rights and interests of those individuals.

Furthermore, the requested information is also protected under the principle of attorney-client confidentiality, and the disclosure of such information to public authorities is not authorized under national legislation. Any deviation from this principle jeopardizes the independence, trust, and protection of legal counsel and fundamentally undermines the core tenets of a rule-of-law-based state.

Beyond attorney-client confidentiality, the activities of human rights defenders are protected under the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression, which recognizes such activities as professional secrets. The law unequivocally stipulates that the source of a professional secret is protected by absolute privilege and that no one may be compelled to disclose such a source. Moreover, in judicial proceedings concerning restrictions on freedom of expression, the defendant cannot be required to disclose the source of confidential information.

It is also worth noting that the court orders provide only limited reference to the applicable procedural norms. The current administrative and civil procedural codes do not establish a specific legal framework for requesting such extensive information from organizations for the purposes outlined by the Bureau. Consequently, there is considerable ambiguity as to the mechanisms and procedures available to challenge these decisions through judicial review or appeal.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, it is evident that both the motions submitted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the court orders issued on their basis rest on fragile legal grounds and establish arbitrary conditions for unlawful interference and control over the internal autonomy of civil society organizations. The obligation to disclose information concerning beneficiaries and third parties will have a severe chilling effect on these organizations, undermining public trust in human rights actors and paralyzing their capacity to operate effectively.

These decisions illustrate that Georgian Dream has already begun to operationalize a set of authoritarian laws aimed at controlling and punishing civil society. The impact of these measures on civil society work may be devastating.

This apparatus has the potential to produce a devastating impact. In parallel with the large-scale deployment of tools of blatant violence, political persecution, and suppression of freedom of expression against individual citizens, Georgian Dream has constructed a complex punitive and surveillance framework targeting critical civil society organizations. This system is built through a chain of unilaterally adopted authoritarian laws—including the so-called “Russian Law”, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and recent amendments to the Law on Grants—which transform these organizations into targets of arbitrary state control, delegitimization, and both administrative and criminal liability.

The adoption of such repressive legislation against independent civil society and media organizations marks the final and conclusive stage of authoritarian consolidation in Georgia. This phase was preceded by the complete subjugation of independent institutions and the capture of state power by Georgian Dream. The judicial system, now instrumentalized to ruthlessly suppress dissent and enforce Russian-style laws, is entirely subordinated to a judicial clan aligned with the ruling party.

The Constitutional Court, which in a democratic state plays a pivotal role in reviewing and invalidating unconstitutional laws, has long since ceased to exercise this function. It remains silent on key constitutional challenges, despite the fact that all of these laws have been formally contested before it. Furthermore, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, established ostensibly in response to European Union recommendations to serve as an independent oversight body, has in practice become a principal mechanism for dismantling democracy in Georgia.

The Social Justice Center remains committed to utilizing all available legal mechanisms to defend its institutional autonomy and the right to freedom of association. Moreover, it stands ready to support other civil society organizations similarly targeted by the current political regime.

Share