The amendments to the Organic Law on "Common Courts," which restrict media access to and coverage of court proceedings, entered into force on 30 June. The blanket restriction established by the new regulations, combined with a vague and bureaucratic mechanism for authorizing court coverage, effectively excludes the media from covering ongoing cases of high public interest. It eliminates public accountability for the judiciary and conflicts with both the right to a fair trial and the freedom of the press protected under freedom of expression.

The Nature of the Restrictions and the Existing Context

On 24 June 2025, “Georgian Dream” adopted a legislative package through an expedited procedure that significantly restricts the existing standards of transparency in court proceedings and decisions. Specifically, under the amendments to the Organic Law on Common Courts: [1]

• photo, film, and video recording and broadcasting are prohibited inside court buildings, courtrooms, and court yards. These rights are reserved solely for the court itself or “a person authorized by the court”;
  
• the court is granted the authority to release photos or video recordings of court proceedings in its possession, “provided it does not conflict with the law”;
  
• photo, video, and audio recording of a hearing — as well as broadcasting — may only be permitted based on a decision of the High Council of Justice taken in relation to a specific hearing;
  
• the provision that previously prohibited the confiscation of personal belongings (including mobile phones, computers, or recording equipment) from individuals entering the court building has been repealed.

Prior to these amendments, the law required the court to record proceedings via audio and video and to make such recordings accessible unless the hearing was fully or partially closed. Furthermore, the right to record proceedings was first granted to the Public Broadcaster, and if it did not exercise this right, then to another national broadcaster. Authorized media were required to share recorded material. Restrictions on coverage applied only in cases of closed hearings or when necessary to protect the interests of specific participants. Moreover, all types of recording were fully permitted within the court building and courtyard, and the law explicitly prohibited the seizure of personal items from individuals present in court.

Notably, in the initially introduced version of the draft law, decisions on granting permission to cover a specific hearing were to be made by the judge, based on a reasoned motion. However, in the version adopted during the first reading, this authority was transferred to the High Council of Justice, and the language became even more vague and general.

According to representatives of “Georgian Dream,” the purpose of the restrictions is to ensure that court cases are considered “without a hysterical environment,” claiming that “...cameras and live broadcasts encouraged disruptive behavior by those present in the courtroom.” [2] In addition, under another bill initiated on 25 June and already adopted in the first reading on 1 July, the above restrictions will be expanded to include audio recording and its dissemination. MP Archil Gorduladze justified this change as a technical correction. [3]

Following the adoption of the legislative amendments, numerous media organizations contacted the High Council of Justice and individual courts with statements and inquiries about the procedure for obtaining permission to cover court proceedings. However, they received no response from the Council. [4] Those who attempted to visit the Council building in person were met at the entrance by police officers and denied entry. [5] As a result, in recent days, journalists have been forced to wait outside the courtyard of Tbilisi City Court all day with their equipment. Such treatment, alongside restrictions on covering proceedings and carrying out professional duties, inevitably creates a perception that working conditions for journalists are being deliberately worsened.

Considering that throughout the month of July court hearings are continuously scheduled for individuals detained for participating in protest rallies — cases of high public interest — it is evident that the legislative amendments are directly aimed at restricting proper media coverage of these proceedings. The closed administration of justice in such cases of public importance — and more generally — raises concerns about the undemocratic nature of the process and the lack of public accountability. This, inevitably, affects public trust in the judiciary and damages the reputation of the court system.

The blanket closure of court proceedings and the vague, bureaucratic procedures required for obtaining permission to cover them violate both the principles of publicity and transparency that are integral to the right to a fair trial, and the ability of the media to carry out its function in accordance with freedom of expression and standards on the right to receive and impart information. 

Human rights standards regarding media coverage of court proceedings

First and foremost, the blanket restrictions on covering court proceedings and on documenting events inside and around the court building — along with the vague authorization procedure imposed by law and administered by the High Council of Justice — contradict established human rights standards. The right to receive and impart information, which falls under the umbrella of freedom of expression, receives heightened protection, particularly when exercised through journalistic activity.

The case law of the European Court of Human Rights includes multiple judgments dealing with restrictions on journalists’ access to and activity within public institutions where processes of high public interest were taking place. In these cases, the Court has consistently emphasized that blanket restrictions — even when based on Convention grounds — are unjustified. For example, in cases concerning blanket restrictions on journalists’ access to parliamentary proceedings, the Court held that such limitations were unjustified in the absence of an individualized assessment of whether media representatives actually posed a threat to public order or safety during the specific proceedings. Such restrictions were found to have an immediate chilling effect both on journalistic activity and the public’s right to be properly informed. [6]

Additionally, when reviewing restrictions on journalistic activity within public institutions, the Court places particular emphasis on procedural safeguards — specifically, whether the rules are foreseeable and free from excessive barriers. In a case involving limitations on journalist accreditation in the Hungarian Parliament, which restricted interviews and filming outside of specially designated areas, the Court acknowledged that parliaments, as public institutions, may designate specific areas to ensure the smooth functioning of the institution. However, due to the lack of adequate procedural guarantees, the vagueness surrounding the duration of the restrictions, and the absence of effective remedies for challenging the decisions, the Court found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. [7]

As for the importance of ensuring that the media can properly fulfill its function in a democratic society, in a case where a journalist was denied access to a facility for asylum seekers in order to interview residents about their legal situation and living conditions, the Court stressed that journalistic access to certain institutions or locations may be especially important where the interests of vulnerable groups are involved. In such contexts, the role of the media as a public “watchdog” takes on increased significance, since their presence serves as a safeguard against unaccountable conduct by state institutions. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the availability of alternative sources of information does not negate the media’s interest in obtaining information first-hand and directly — nor does it diminish their role in keeping the public informed about matters of significant public concern. [8]

The issue of media coverage of public institutions — and the accountability it brings — takes on even greater importance when it concerns the judiciary. According to the European Court of Human Rights, the public nature of court proceedings protects the parties from secret justice conducted out of public view. Publicity is also an essential means of maintaining public confidence in the courts. [9] While this aspect of the right to a fair trial is not absolute, it may only be restricted in specific cases, such as to protect the private life of the parties, the interests of minors, or, in narrowly defined and necessary cases, the interests of justice or security. This is especially relevant in criminal and administrative cases, where there is a heightened public expectation of transparency. According to the Court’s case law, while security interests may indeed be present in such proceedings, referencing security alone cannot justify completely excluding the public or media from a hearing — and this should only occur in rare cases. [10] Such exceptions must be narrowly defined and comply with the principle of necessity. The judiciary must consider all alternative measures to maintain order and security in the courtroom, giving preference to those that are less restrictive in achieving these aims. [11]

Assessment

In light of the above, it is clear that the restrictions established under the 25 June legislative amendments on media coverage of court proceedings do not meet human rights standards. Not only is the restriction blanket in nature and fails to consider less restrictive, individualized measures for achieving the goals of protecting the interests of justice and ensuring safety, but many elements of the restriction remain vague. In particular, it is unclear who qualifies as a “person authorized by the court” or how the court is supposed to identify such a person. The role and mandate of the High Council of Justice in this process is even more ambiguous. Considering that dozens of hearings take place daily across courts in the country — where the presiding judge is best positioned to assess the circumstances and make immediate, case-specific decisions — it is unclear what legal purpose is served by involving the judiciary’s central self-governing body in this process, other than to introduce yet another layer of control over courts and judges. Furthermore, it remains unclear what procedure, criteria, or timeframes the High Council of Justice must follow when issuing authorization for media coverage of court proceedings, as the Council currently has no normative act governing this matter.

Beyond the adoption of these specific restrictions, the broader context of the current political and societal crisis, as well as other parallel legislative changes that fundamentally restrict additional aspects of media operations,[12] make it evident that “Georgian Dream’s” aim is to render the work of independent media practically impossible. Consequently, the overall quality of accurate and objective public information would be dramatically reduced — undermining essential pillars of a functioning democratic society. It appears that both “Georgian Dream” and representatives of the judiciary perceive growing public criticism as dangerous, especially in relation to court proceedings tied to public protest, which are covered most extensively and accurately by independent media organizations. It is precisely the consistent and vital work of the media that has enabled the public to clearly see the scale of legal and moral violations unfolding in these proceedings: the extent to which the law is being flagrantly breached by judges, prosecutors, and prosecution witnesses alike; and the lack of empathy shown by courts toward defendants and their families. All of this has increased public solidarity with those facing prosecution and raised awareness of systemic problems within the judiciary. Naturally, such outcomes are deemed unacceptable and threatening by both “Georgian Dream” and the judicial establishment.

It is also evident that, in the context of the judiciary’s growing informal consolidation of power, the space for individual judges to make independent decisions is shrinking. On the one hand, this may be intended to reduce the personal burden of responsibility placed on them; on the other hand, it serves to further concentrate power in the hands of the High Council of Justice — thereby minimizing the risk of any unexpected or undesired outcomes during politically sensitive proceedings.

Moreover, it is deeply concerning that “Georgian Dream” no longer even formally adheres to the minimum standards of procedural democracy during the legislative process — a feature that, until recently, was one of its core strategic tools. Legislative amendments passed in 2–3 days under expedited procedure, where the content changes radically between readings — and further changes are initiated before the public even has a chance to grasp the substance — fundamentally erode not only democratic governance but also the foundational principles and predictability of the rule of law, leaving society in a constant state of uncertainty and turbulence.

Ultimately, these legislative amendments are yet another essential and alarming component of “Georgian Dream’s” accelerated project to consolidate and stabilize authoritarian rule. They obscure court proceedings of critical public importance and leave politically persecuted individuals — victims of state repression — even more vulnerable in the face of the system. It is also worth recalling that, under the previous United National Movement government, it was “Georgian Dream” itself that took the important democratic step of reopening court proceedings to the public shortly after coming to power in 2013. The demonstrative reversal of that decision — a rollback of its own commitment to basic democratic and legal principles — now deprives victims of repression of visibility and makes media oversight impossible. This must be regarded as one of the clearest indicators of “Georgian Dream’s” authoritarian ambitions.

Share