Venice Commission issues critical opinion on Georgia’s law on grants
Venice Commission on Georgia’s Law on Grants
The Venice Commission has published a critical opinion on Georgia’s Law on Grants. In its final opinion, the Commission firmly maintains that the legislation does not serve its stated aims of protecting and strengthening Georgia’s sovereignty or shielding political parties from foreign influence and interference.
The Venice Commission, officially known as the European Commission for Democracy through Law, is an independent advisory body of the Council of Europe that deals with constitutional and legal matters. For more than two years, the Georgian authorities have sharply criticised the Commission. Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze called it one of the least serious European institutions, while parliamentary speaker Shalva Papuashvili said it had effectively become an ordinary political commentator.
According to the opinion, the law imposes disproportionate and unjustified restrictions on the fundamental rights and political freedoms of Georgian citizens, particularly freedom of association and freedom of expression. It also obstructs the formation and continued existence of political opposition.
The 25-page opinion was adopted at the Commission’s plenary session on 9–10 October 2027 and published on 13 October. The Commission prepared its assessment at the request of Elvira Kovács, chair of the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The document examines a package of legislative amendments that the parliamentary majority of the ruling Georgian Dream party adopted on 4 March 2026. The amendments affect the Law on Grants, the Organic Law on Political Associations of Citizens, the Criminal Code and related legislation.
What does the opinion say?
The Venice Commission has called on the Georgian authorities to revise legislation governing foreign grants, political activity and the associated criminal liability. In the Commission’s assessment, broad and vague wording in these laws gives the executive excessive powers and could lead to restrictions on political pluralism.
The Commission strongly urges the authorities to pay particular attention to reviewing criminal penalties and ambiguous provisions that give the executive wide scope to interpret the law.
One of the Venice Commission’s main concerns is the broad definition of a “grant”. Under the current legislation, grants can include not only financial assistance but also technical support, expert advice, various services, training and other forms of cooperation.
In addition, organisations must obtain prior approval from the state authorities to receive certain types of foreign funding.
In the Commission’s view, the combination of a broad definition of a grant and the requirement for prior approval leaves organisations in a state of legal uncertainty and gives the authorities wide scope to restrict their activities.
The opinion notes that vague legislative wording fails to meet the principle of legal certainty. This principle requires laws to be sufficiently clear and predictable to allow individuals and organisations to determine their rights and obligations.
The Venice Commission believes that the restrictions could obstruct the formation and continued existence of opposition political forces and, consequently, undermine political pluralism.
The Commission stresses that protecting national sovereignty and preventing foreign interference do not, in themselves, justify disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights.
Authorities refused to cooperate with the Commission
In its opinion, the Venice Commission notes that the Georgian government, the parliamentary majority, the State Grants Management Agency and the State Audit Office all declined to meet its representatives.
The State Grants Management Agency is the very body that is due to be dissolved.
“The Venice Commission regrets that the Georgian authorities were unwilling to engage with the Commission while it prepared this opinion, although the Commission itself remains open to dialogue,” the document concludes.
Commentaries
Tamta Mikeladze, director of the Social Justice Centre:
Among other things, the Commission stated the following:
- The legal framework underpinning the law lacks legal certainty and predictability. Key concepts — such as “grant”, activities “related to political issues”, “an organisation representing the interests of a foreign state”, “a person with a declared party-political objective”, “creating an impression of illegitimacy” and “harming state interests” — rely on excessively broad and imprecise wording.
- The mechanisms for repression, sanctions and inspections provided for by the law raise serious concerns under international human rights standards.
The Commission strongly recommends reconsidering the use of criminal penalties for breaches of the procedures and obligations established by the Law on Grants. Such breaches should be dealt with exclusively through administrative measures, provided that adequate and robust procedural safeguards are in place.
- The chilling effect across the sector and public sphere will lead to their paralysis. Faced with the authorities’ powers of prior control and extensive monitoring, as well as the threat of investigations, criminal prosecution and imprisonment, individuals and organisations may reasonably decide to refrain from lawful activities protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. As a result, the exercise of freedom of association and freedom of expression, as well as the right to participate in political processes, is likely to be restricted — not so much through direct prohibitions, but, more significantly, by creating a legal environment in which the risks associated with civic engagement become so high that taking them may seem unjustifiably dangerous.
I am convinced that the European Court will reach the same conclusion very soon in the cases we have brought before it. Georgian Dream claims to be committed to the rule of law and to complying with court rulings. Let us see how it honours that commitment.
Tamar Oniani, chair of the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association:
The amendments introduced in March 2026 to the Law on Grants and related legislation, including the Criminal Code, have had destructive consequences. They greatly broadened the definition of a “grant” while deliberately leaving the wording ambiguous, thereby criminalising the receipt of so-called “unauthorised” grants. The aim was to create another powerful tool of control in the hands of the authorities.
Let us now consider the Venice Commission’s findings on these amendments.
They can be summarised in two main points (see also paragraph 83 of the original opinion):
- The amendments have no legitimate aim.
The Venice Commission concludes that the legislation does not serve the stated purpose of protecting or strengthening Georgia’s sovereignty or shielding its political parties from foreign influence and interference.
- In reality, the amendments aim to use the law as a tool to advance a political agenda, namely to tighten control over civil society and opposition political groups. In the Venice Commission’s view, the amendments impose disproportionate and excessive restrictions on the fundamental rights and political freedoms of Georgian citizens, particularly freedom of association and freedom of expression.
The legislation obstructs the formation and continued existence of political opposition.
This is particularly relevant when considering the cumulative and systemic impact of the legislative framework as a whole, as it stood on 4 March 2026.
The legislation under review contradicts international standards on pluralism and democracy.
Rather than protecting Georgia’s sovereignty, constitutional order and political parties from foreign influence and interference, the legislation creates a risk of undermining them.
What does the so-called Law on Grants provide for?
A package of legislative acts adopted on 4 March 2026 significantly broadened the definition of a “grant” to include both financial and non-financial support, provided that such support could be used to influence domestic or foreign policy, including activities related to the interests of a foreign state or political force.
The law also strengthens the State Audit Office’s oversight of the provision and receipt of grants. Foreign legal entities that provide funding to branches operating in Georgia without government approval face penalties, including a fine equal to twice the value of the grant.
Violations of grant legislation can also result in criminal liability. The penalties include fines, community service or imprisonment for up to six years.
The amendments also affect the political process. People who work primarily for organisations funded from foreign sources cannot join political parties for eight years. Moreover, restrictions on political parties also apply to entities that are not formally parties but engage in political activity in practice.
The legislative package also tightens administrative liability for private companies that take part in public political activities.
One of the most controversial aspects of the amendments is a set of new provisions in the Criminal Code that broaden the definition of “extremism”. Under a new article, public calls for actions against the constitutional order — including calls to disobey the authorities or establish alternative structures — may constitute criminal offences.
In addition, crimes motivated by a refusal to recognise constitutional authorities qualify as offences committed under aggravating circumstances, increasing the sentence by at least one year.
Experts argue that such wording allows for broad interpretation and increases the risk that the law could be used against dissent and critical activity.
Venice Commission on Georgia’s Law on Grants
