The Venice Commission — the Council of Europe’s leading advisory body on constitutional and legal matters — has issued a sharply critical opinion on Georgia’s newly adopted laws restricting foreign funding for civil society and media organizations. In its detailed 24-page assessment, released on October 15 at the request of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Monitoring Committee, the Commission urged the Georgian government to repeal or substantially amend the controversial provisions, warning that they threaten democratic freedoms and the rule of law.

The opinion examines four legislative acts adopted earlier this year by the ruling Georgian Dream party in its one-party parliament: the so-called Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), amendments to the Law on Grants, the Law on Broadcasting, and the Law on Political Associations. Taken together, the Commission found that these measures "undermine civic space" and impose "disproportionate restrictions" on fundamental rights. The Commission called for the outright repeal of Georgia’s version of FARA and the removal of the foreign funding ban for broadcasters. It also recommended the repeal or thorough revision of recent amendments requiring foreign donors to obtain government consent before distributing grants to local NGOs. The only provision the body deemed within acceptable limits was the ban on in-kind foreign support for political parties, which it said falls within the state’s discretionary powers. The opinion expressed concern that the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which has been granted broad authority to enforce these laws, lacks the institutional safeguards necessary to ensure independence and political neutrality. The Commission further criticized the Georgian authorities for refusing to cooperate during the preparation of the opinion, stressing that it remains open to future engagement to align Georgia’s legislation with European standards.

The Commission’s most forceful criticism targeted the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which Georgian Dream claims mirrors the U.S. FARA. The body rejected that comparison, noting that "the mere resemblance in statutory language does not guarantee compatibility with democratic principles". The Georgian law, it said, lacks the legal clarity, institutional checks, and judicial safeguards that characterize its U.S. counterpart. According to the opinion, the Georgian FARA’s vague and sweeping definitions of terms such as "foreign principal" and "agent of a foreign principal" create serious risks of arbitrary interpretation and political misuse. The Commission warned that these provisions could be used to stigmatize or silence civic actors and journalists, noting that the term "agent of a foreign principal" itself carries a chilling and stigmatizing effect on freedom of association and expression. The opinion further emphasized that the law’s criminal penalties are overly broad and disproportionate, lacking foreseeability and justification, and that the enforcement body — the Anti-Corruption Bureau — wields excessive discretion without sufficient guarantees of neutrality.

The Commission also objected to the amendments to the Law on Grants, which introduced a government approval requirement for all foreign-funded grants to Georgian organizations. It described the measure as unjustified and disproportionate, arguing that it "lacks objective criteria, clear grounds for refusal, and sufficient procedural safeguards". The opinion warned that these provisions enable arbitrary or discriminatory decision-making and could effectively stifle foreign assistance to independent organizations. The Commission also highlighted the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s "expansive investigatory powers" — including the authority to seize assets — as undermining fairness and due process. It called for the repeal or comprehensive revision of these amendments to ensure that any restrictions on foreign grants are narrowly tailored, transparent, and proportionate.

The Commission also examined the amendments to the Law on Broadcasting, which ban all foreign funding for Georgian broadcasters. It found that the measure’s blanket prohibition, based on an overly broad definition of "foreign power," fails to distinguish between legitimate democratic support and undue interference. Such restrictions, the opinion said, "undermine media pluralism and violate the principle of proportionality". The Commission therefore urged Georgian authorities to repeal the foreign funding ban entirely, emphasizing that less restrictive means could safeguard transparency without compromising freedom of the press.

Addressing changes to the Law on Political Associations, which prohibit parties from receiving in-kind support such as venues or materials for public events, the Commission acknowledged that states retain a margin of discretion in regulating political finance. However, it cautioned that these restrictions should not form part of a broader pattern limiting public participation or international engagement.

The Venice Commission assessed the new legislative package through what it called a "systemic approach," considering the combined effects of overlapping laws targeting the same groups and individuals. It concluded that the cumulative impact restricts democratic participation and civic expression far beyond what can be justified by legitimate national security or transparency concerns. It urged Georgian authorities to revise the entire framework rather than layering new restrictive measures on top of existing laws, stating that "where the existing provisions have proved insufficient, the solution lies in improvement, not multiplication of controls".

The Commission’s six key recommendations include:

Avoid overlapping or duplicative laws affecting the same subjects.
 

Define terms precisely and limit discretionary powers of enforcement agencies.

Eliminate stigmatizing terminology such as "agent of a foreign principal".

Restrict obligations to what is strictly necessary and proportionate.

Ensure sanctions are clearly defined, proportionate, and protected against abuse.

Introduce procedural guarantees, including independent and impartial enforcement mechanisms.