The Venice Commission has warned that sweeping legislative changes adopted in Georgia in March 2026 risk undermining the country’s sovereignty, constitutional system, and political parties, saying they impose disproportionate and unnecessary restrictions on fundamental rights and political freedoms. The legislation impacted a broad swathe of civil society, particularly by limiting the ability of NGOs and other bodies from receiving foreign grants, among other changes to the criminal and administrative code.
In an opinion adopted during its 9–10 October plenary session and dated 13 October, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters said the legislation threatened democratic pluralism and could prevent the formation and survival of a political opposition.
‘In light of these conclusions, the Venice Commission is of the strong view that the legislation under examination does not pursue the aim of protecting and strengthening the sovereignty of Georgia and political parties from foreign influence and external interference. It rather imposes disproportionate and unnecessary restrictions on the fundamental rights and political freedoms of the Georgian citizens, concerning in particular freedom of association and expression and preventing the formation and survival of a political opposition — especially when considering the cumulative and systemic impact of the 4 March 2026 legislative framework as a whole, including recent amendments assessed in the Venice Commission Opinion on the amendments of 16 October 2025 to the Organic law on political associations of citizens and related laws’, the opinion states.
The commission recommended strongly reconsidering the use of criminal-law sanctions for breaches of obligations under the law on grants and certain other conduct covered by the legislation. It said such conduct should instead be dealt with through administrative measures accompanied by robust procedural safeguards.
Georgian Dream has increasingly criticised the Venice Commission amid deteriorating relations with the West. In January 2026, Parliamentary Speaker Shalva Papuashvili described the commission as a ‘political tool used against countries to impose various instruments or institutions driven by a political agenda’.
Broad definition of grants
The 23-page opinion examines amendments adopted by the Georgian Parliament on 4 March 2026 to the law on grants, the law on political associations of citizens, the criminal code, and related legislation.
The commission assessed the changes in the context of a broader legislative framework governing foreign funding, civil society, and political activity, noting that the March amendments built on earlier measures adopted since 2023.
One of its main concerns is the expanded definition of a grant. The amendments bring a broader range of financial and in-kind support within the definition, including technical assistance, the sharing of knowledge and expertise, services, and other forms of assistance or cooperation.
Certain newly defined categories of grants require prior government approval.
The commission warned that the legislation’s broad and open-ended wording makes it difficult for people and organisations to determine whether their activities fall within its scope. It specifically cited ordinary professional cooperation, academic exchanges, training programmes, research projects, and policy dialogue as examples of activities whose status may be unclear.
It also raised concerns about the breadth of the authorities’ discretion, saying key legal concepts need to be clarified and narrowly defined to ensure legal certainty and foreseeability.
Criminal penalties and political restrictions
The opinion raises concerns about criminal liability introduced by the amendments for violations of grant-related requirements. Certain offences, including receiving or using a foreign grant without the required prior government approval, can carry prison sentences of up to six years.
The commission argued that criminal law should be used only as a last resort, where less intrusive measures are insufficient. It recommended that breaches of grant-related obligations be dealt with through administrative measures and appropriate procedural safeguards.
The opinion also examines a provision prohibiting people from joining political parties for eight years if they have received income under an employment contract with an organisation pursuing the interests of a foreign power.
The commission stressed that the restriction concerns party membership, rather than eligibility to stand for election. It criticised the measure for applying regardless of whether the individual had engaged in unlawful conduct, acted under the direction of a foreign power, or exercised improper influence.
It warned that the restrictions could discourage participation in political life and create a deterrent effect extending beyond those directly affected by the legislation.
The commission also raised concerns about expanded State Audit Office powers to monitor the financial activities of political parties and other actors, as well as provisions allowing people to be questioned before a magistrate judge if they may possess information relevant to the office’s monitoring activities.
It said the relevant provisions were framed too broadly and called for clearer limits and stronger safeguards against arbitrary interference.
Commission criticises legislative process
The commission also criticised the process through which the amendments were adopted.
The legislative package was registered on 21 January 2026 and passed its first reading on 3 February, its second reading on 18 February, and its third reading on 4 March.
The commission noted that the explanatory notes accompanying the draft laws stated that no state or non-state organisations, experts, or working groups had participated in their preparation. They also stated that no assessment by an organisation, institution, working group, or expert had been undertaken, and that no comparative review of similar legislation or other countries’ experience had been prepared.
The commission emphasised that legislation affecting fundamental rights, political participation, and civil society requires an inclusive and transparent process that allows relevant actors to express their views.
The opinion also records that representatives of the Georgian government and Georgian Dream declined to meet the commission’s delegation during its consultations in September. The State Grant Management Agency and the State Audit Office also declined to meet the delegation.
In its conclusion, the commission said the legislation was contrary to international standards on pluralism and democracy.
‘This legislation is contrary to international standards on pluralism and democracy. Rather than protecting the sovereignty of Georgia, the constitutional system and political parties from foreign influence and external interference, the legislation at stake risks undermining them profoundly’, the opinion states.
The commission said it regretted that the Georgian authorities had not wished to engage with it in preparing the opinion, but remained open to dialogue.