Constitutional Court Hearing on Foreign Agents Law

From 29 to 31 August, the Georgian Constitutional Court held the preliminary hearing on the lawsuits against the Foreign Agents Law filed by President Zurabishvili, 121 civil society and media organizations, opposition MPs, and two journalists, which the Court had previously consolidated into a single case.

After the preliminary hearing, the Court will decide on the admissibility of the constitutional claims and, more importantly, whether to temporarily suspend the practical provisions of the law pending its final ruling, as requested by the plaintiffs.

Below we have covered each day of the session:

Day 3:

• At 11:00 a.m., the Court’s preliminary session resumed. The session started with a testimony from the linguist Manana Beridze who had been invited to appear before the Court upon the plaintiff’s motion. During the first two days of the session, the stigmatization of organizations became a central issue of discussion, with both plaintiffs and defendants debating whether the terms used in the law had negative, neutral, or positive connotations.
• Marina Beridze, presented an 88-page study that uses three different linguistic methodologies to examine the key words and phrases in Georgian used in the text of the law. These words and phrases include: “foreign”, “interest”, “conductor” (as pursuer, promoter), “foreign power”, “interests of foreign power”, and “organization pursuing the interests of foreign power.”  
• She cited the study’s conclusion that “the key concepts and terms have unambiguously negative connotations,” adding that the use of these words with positive or neutral connotations is possible only with “incremental modifiers,” “in the context specifically designed” to make them positive or neutral.
• The linguist also noted that the key word in the law’s text is not “foreign”, but the “interest.”
• She also noted that although the term “agent” was removed from the earlier 2023 version of the law and has been replaced with “organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power” in the reintroduced 2024 version, “the synonymous meaning between “conductor” [who is pursuing the interests of a foreign power] and “agent” persists.” The linguist noted that although the word “agent” has been removed from the text, it is still present in verbal discourse about the legislation and its subjects. 
• Judge Eva Gotsiridze asked  what interchangeable words would the linguist offer for the law to remove the problem of negative connotation of terms without changing their ideas. The linguist suggested that even without the negative connotation of the terms or even by changing the title of the law, the essence of the law cannot be changed. 
• Notably, the linguist observed that the word “transparency,” which the defendant and the country’s ruling party claim is the sole purpose of the law, appears extremely rarely, only twice in the text. 
• The testimony became somewhat tense when the defendant implied the linguist is biased. At the end of the testimony, Marina Beridze said that she had received no remuneration for the research. “This was purely scientific work, the responsibility of the citizen,” she stressed. 
• After three hours of testimonies, the meeting took a one-hour break.

• The session resumed with the judges asking plaintiffs and defendants questions.
• The case marked a historic moment for the Constitutional Court, as it was the first time that the admissibility of an alleged violation of Article 78 of the Constitution was discussed.
• Article 78 of Georgia’s Constitution reads: “The constitutional bodies shall take all measures within the scope of their competencies to ensure the full integration of Georgia into the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.” Article 78 was the central ground cited by all of the plaintiffs to argue that the Foreign Agents Law violated the Constitution.
• Judge Eva Gotsiridze read out Article 78 to the Court and provided a brief legal analysis. In her complex question, she asked the plaintiffs to clarify how could the Constitutional Court have jurisdiction to consider the alleged violation of such a broad, “political” provision and what legal approach, evidence, or circumstances it might use to rule on its alleged violation.
• Eka Beselia, the representative of the President, spoke at length about the five directions that the Constitutional Court can take into consideration for a proper legal examination of the alleged violation of Article 78 by the Foreign Agents Law as a whole. 1. Harmonization of Georgian legislation with EU legislation: Beselia noted that the Parliament must always consider that it is ensuring legal alignment with the EU when it performs its function, adopting legislation, and that the Constitutional Court should discuss whether the Parliament’s move to adopt the Foreign Agents Law was relevant in this regard; 2. The law’s violation of other constitutional rights, which in itself violates Article 78; 3. International legal practice in similar cases and international legal analysis of Georgia’s Foreign Agents Law: Beselia mentioned the Commission v. Hungary case on the country’s so-called Transparency Law, similar to the Georgian legislation, in which the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled that Hungary had imposed “discriminatory and unjustified restrictions on foreign donations to civil society organizations” and as a result of which, Hungary was forced to repeal the law. The President’s representative said that the Constitutional Court should take this case into consideration. As for international legal opinions on Georgia’s “Foreign Agents Law,” Beselia referred to the legal analysis of the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR. Beselia noted that they could be used as legal sources for the Constitutional Court; 4. Georgia’s EU integration process assessment, including through the Foreign Agents Law’s relevance to the objectives of the EU’s Nine Steps: Eka Beselia noted that European integration is essentially a long process rather than a given fact, which she suggested that the Constitutional Court should observe from a broad perspective, including by assessing how the Foreign Agents Law serves the implementation of the EU’s nine steps, which are crucial for Georgia to move to the accession talks; 5. The Western decision-maker statements on the law: Eka Beselia repeatedly emphasized that the case is political but that this fact should not prevent the Constitutional Court from discussing the alleged breach of the constitutional article. Other plaintiffs’ representatives also repeatedly emphasized that the court must consider the critical statements of the very politicians and leaders who decide on Georgia’s integration into the EU. 
• Judge Eva Gotsriridze seemed less convinced by the answers, reiterating that the Constitutional Court could end up in a dead end if it entered the “political” sphere. She even said that Article 78, which states that all constitutional bodies are obliged to take “all measures” within their competence to ensure Georgia’s integration into the EU and NATO, was “exaggerated” and asked: “Where is the legal measurement here?” She said, “We all want Europe very much,” but she could hardly see the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court on the alleged violation of Article 78 and asked the plaintiffs to show it clearly. 
• Eka Beselia, the President’s representative, after restating the arguments she had discussed several times, finally added that the Constitutional Court itself, as one of the constitutional bodies of Georgia, is not only able but obliged to uphold Article 78 in order to save Georgia’s integration into the EU and NATO and not to become an obstacle on this path, and asked the judges to at least temporarily suspend the enactment of the law and accept the case for further deliberation. 
• Tamar Kordzaia, an opposition MP and the representative of the opposition MPs’ lawsuit added that Georgia’s obtaining of the EU candidate status can also serve as another point to be considered by the Court. She stressed that Georgia was granted the EU candidate status after the Parliament withdrew the Foreign Agents Law in 2023, and she also mentioned the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was advanced to the EU accession talks only after the similar legislation was repealed. She also noted that the statements of Western leaders must be taken into account, as they are the ones who will make the actual decisions on Georgia’s integration into the EU. Therefore, the Constitutional Court should apply their statements to the discussion of the alleged violation of Article 78. 
• Judge Eva Gotsiridze again found the answers unconvincing, this time questioning the relevance of the Western leaders’ statements for the Constitutional Court to consider. Jumping to the hypothetical scenario in which there were no such statements from the West, she asked how the Constitutional Court would be able to rule on the violation of Article 78 on the legal (and not political) basis alone, whether it would have to “wait for the coming of such statements.”
• Ana Natsvlishvili, another opposition MP, then mentioned the EU’s nine steps and noted that the fulfillment of these steps, especially the ninth step regarding civil society organizations, can be used as an “indicator”, as a “source” for the Constitutional Court to assess the alleged violation of Article 78 by the Foreign Agents Law. 
• Judge Eva Gotsiridze again went beyond the specific case, asking the plaintiffs whether the Constitutional Court would have the authority to rule on any general “inactivity” of constitutional bodies in fulfilling the nine steps. 
• The plaintiffs stressed that they are not asking the Constitutional Court to rule on a hypothetical scenario of failure to fulfill the nine steps in general but on the specific case of violation of Article 78 by the Foreign Agents Law, which can be deliberated based on, among other things, the nine steps, – one of the “indicators” that the Court can apply in its deliberations. 

• The next point of discussion was the admissibility of the alleged violation of Article 17 of the Georgian Constitution, which provides for the right to freedom of opinion, information, mass media, and the Internet. The plaintiffs emphasized that the registration of media organizations as such “pursuing the interests of a foreign power” will lead to their stigmatization and, if not technically, then substantially endanger the credibility of their information to the public. They said the law’s chilling effect of stigmatizing media organizations will constrain their right to freedom of expression. 

• Judge Khvicha Kikilashvili asked the defendant about the legitimacy of publishing the bank accounts of people working in civil society and media organizations. Levan Ghavtadze, the parliamentary representative, said that “the publication of bank accounts is not a problem” and drew some parallels comparing CSOs to political parties, which publish their bank accounts for political donations, and to individuals, who may disclose their bank accounts on social media or television when seeking help. However, Ghavtadze failed to recognize the importance of the fact that these disclosures are made voluntarily, while the Foreign Agents Law requires organizations to disclose the personal information, including bank accounts, of their staff members.
• Judge Eva Gotsiridze questioned the asserted necessity of a link between receiving funds and pursuing the interests of a foreign power, as suggested by the defendant, who repeatedly emphasized in response the belief that “money comes with interest.”  The defendant cited the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), arguing that it works according to the interests of Germany, thus concluding that “every project funded by GIZ has a specific [German] interest.” Judge Manana Kobakhidze countered the defendant’s view, saying that she had once worked on GIZ-funded research but noted that she was “completely free” in her work within the project, rejecting the notion that money necessarily comes with strings attached.
• Judges Teimuraz Tughushi and Giorgi Tevdorashvili asked the defendant to elaborate on which legitimate goals of the law could be harmed if the court decided to suspend the law temporarily. The defendant cited transparency and vague sovereignty goals of the law. Levan Ghavtadze, the parliamentary representative, first argued that the plaintiffs had failed to show that there would be irreparable harm if the law was not suspended. Then he reiterated that the people, as the source of state power, are interested in knowing who is funding these organizations. He argued that ensuring transparency is the goal itself, but it is also an “intermediate goal” to reach the ultimate goal of protecting state sovereignty. However, Judge Teimuraz Tughushi seemed unconvinced by the “urgent need” justification, pointing out that CSOs had been operating in Georgia for decades without transparency ever being a significant concern and questioning why it had suddenly become an issue. While the defendant reiterated that the law should not be temporarily suspended, claiming the absence of irreparable harm to civil society and media organizations, Judge Teimuraz Tughushi sought clarification on the urgent need to avoid suspension, a justification the defendant ultimately seemed unable to provide.
• The session went into a break. 

• The session resumed with each side asking questions of the other. For approximately two hours, only the defendant asked the questions. The defendant asked mostly leading questions about the plaintiffs’ view of CSOs and their role in shaping public opinion, transparency issues, society’s interest in these organizations, stigmatization, etc., to which the plaintiffs generally reiterated their positions already expressed during the days of the session. The defendant also repeatedly voiced some anti-Western propaganda and disinformation, linking NATO membership with the loss of occupied territories and legalizing same-sex marriage with joining the EU. All of this was done to challenge Article 78 and to urge the judges not to consider the alleged violation of this Article for deliberation. There were also several minor verbal altercations. The plaintiffs did not ask questions for a quick end to the session, recognizing the time sensitivity of the case.
• The session took a short break. 

• The session resumed with the plaintiffs’ closing statements. In their speeches, all the plaintiffs once again underlined the importance of the case and warned of the irreparable damage that will be caused to the civil sector if the Court does not issue a temporary suspension of the law. They also reminded the judges of their opportunity and, at the same time, their obligation as representatives of the Constitutional Court, one of the constitutional bodies, to uphold Article 78 of the Constitution – to protect Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations. 
• After the five-minute break, the session resumed with closing statements from the defendant’s representatives. They reiterated general arguments about transparency and a notion of sovereignty, ultimately arguing that the appeals should not be accepted for deliberation and, more critically, that there is no need to suspend the law temporarily.
• After a 13-hour session, the Constitutional Court’s preliminary hearing ended a little after midnight. Chairman Merab Turava said the parties would be informed of the court’s decision on the admissibility of the lawsuits and the temporary suspension of the law. However, he did not specify when the ruling would be issued.

Day 2

• At 11:00 a.m., the Preliminary Session of the Court resumed. The Court heard from representatives of the Ministry of Justice. Under the Foreign Agents Law, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for implementing the practical provisions of the law regarding the registration, subsequent monitoring and, if necessary, imposing fines of organizations. 
• Tamar Tkeshelashvili, First Deputy Minister of Justice, said that 233 organizations, only about one percent of all organizations, have applied to the Public Registry to be registered under the law as entities “pursuing the interests of foreign powers.” She noted that the organizations still have two more days to register. 

• Beka Dzamashvili, Deputy Minister of Justice, began by addressing the issue of stigmatizing organizations by registering them as “foreign agents,” which was raised by the plaintiffs during yesterday’s hearing. 
• A minor verbal altercation occurred when Eka Beselia, the President’s representative, interrupted the speech and protested to the judges that the Deputy Minister of Justice was delving into the plaintiffs’ claims and taking a position on the issue of their admissibility before the court, which was beyond the scope of his testimony. She also noted that the Deputy Minister of Justice seemed to be backing the defendant. Judge Manana Kobakhidze sided with the representative of the Ministry of Justice to present his position on the case. The Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Merab Turava, stated that the speakers were free to discuss any issues they considered important. 
• Beka Dzamashvili then continued his speech by speaking about the issue of stigmatization in international legal practice, citing “the courts of Strasbourg and Luxembourg” and suggesting that both courts set the standard that “the mere naming can of course be taken into account, but is not decisive” when it comes to stigmatization. He tried to explain that stigmatization is a complex issue that should include not only the name, but also other layers, such as what the state obliges the subjects of the law to do, how society perceives them, and so on. He maintained that the Ministry of Justice alone cannot stigmatize the organizations even if it registers them under the controversial name. He also cited a Strasbourg court case to demonstrate that the law can only be temporarily suspended on the grounds of irreparable harm, which he seemed to suggest the Foreign Agents Law does not have.

• Davit Devidze, Chairman of the Public Registry, noted that organizations will be required to submit financial statements, founding documents and charters, as well as their most recent extracts from Public Registry. He emphasized that the last two are already public, leaving the financial statements as the only new document to be published. Devidze said that personal and sensitive information obtained during monitoring will not be made public, but concerns with accessing, obtaining and processing these information were clearly shown in his answers…

Personal Information and Sensitive Information Issues

During the session, the judges raised several concerns regarding personal and sensitive information. The Foreign Agents Law allows the Public Registry, which operates under the Ministry of Justice, to request such data from organizations concerning their work, as well as their employees and, in some cases, their beneficiaries. The Justice Ministry will start monitoring organizations from September 3, after the deadline for registering entities voluntarily as “pursuing the interests of foreign power” expires on Monday, September 2. The Public Registry Chair said that personal and sensitive information obtained during monitoring will not be made public, but his answers left room for concerns regarding the issues such as accessing, obtaining and processing this information. More on this was said during the hearing:

• Judge Teimuraz Tughushi has several times pointed out that the financial statement templates that organizations are required to submit include fields for personal information such as names, IDs, positions, and salaries of employees. Davit Devidze repeatedly avoided directly addressing this crucial concern. Several times he said that the financial statements will not include special categories of data, which include, among others, racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, health or sexual orientation. But his answer lacked clarity about whether personal information such as names, surnames, IDs, salaries and other information about the organizations’ employees will be made public. He said: “If there is such information that needs to be blurred, the Public Registry will do so,” adding that the disclosure of financial statements will be in “full compliance” with Georgian laws on “protection of personal data” and “transparency of foreign influence.” 
• Judge Eva Gotsiridze raised concerns about how the confidentiality of journalists’ sources would be protected if payments to those sources had to be included in media organizations’ financial statements. Initially, Devidze suggested that they can say vaguely that payments were made for some “support” or “services” provided by these individuals, without specifying the nature of the service, such as being a source for journalists. He noted, however, that the Public Registry will have the authority to investigate these details. Asked if this means that a state body or its employees could potentially identify a journalist’s source, Devidze had to admit: “The state will know. Yes!”
• Judge Giorgi Kverenchkhiladze questioned the need for access to special categories of data, such as religious beliefs or sexual life, for financial monitoring purposes. Similarly, Judge Eva Gotsiridze sought to understand the correlation between the alleged need for transparency and access to sensitive personal information.. In response, the Chair of Public Registry said that the Public Registry needs access to special categories of personal data in order to carry out “comprehensive monitoring” without being hindered by “barriers.” His reasoning was that organizations might try to deceive the authorities, thereby hindering their ability to carry out their legal duties, and that access to this special category of data is  essential to prevent such deception.
• Another question revealed the problem that arises in the process of requesting information from organizations, namely the fines and disruption of their activities. Judge Manana Kobakhidze asked how the Public Registry will carry out the monitoring of organizations in practice, whether it will, for example, search their offices. Davit Devidze said that “the law does not provide for such a right, nor does the regulation approved by the Minister provide for such a possibility.” He added that the Public Registry only has the right to request the information from the organization. Asked what happens if the organization refuses to provide the information, Devidze said that the Public Registry “will register it as an organization that pursues the interests of foreign powers,” but will approach it again with a request to fill out the financial statement. “Registration does not exempt [organizations] from filling out the [financial] statement,” Devidze said, citing the law. Later he reaffirmed that in case the organizations continue to refuse to submit the financial statements, since the Public Registry will not be able to force them to fill them out, the organizations will continue to be subject to continuous heavy fines.

However, from the moment the “foreign agents” are identified and registered as such, either voluntarily or “by force”, and even if they have submitted their financial statements to the Public Registry, the Registry goes to the next step, which is to verify the authenticity of these financial statements. Now, the special inspector appointed by the Public Registry has the discretion to dig deeper and request more data, including sensitive information about the employees and beneficiaries of the organizations, if the inspector decides that obtaining such information is necessary. In these cases, organizations and even individuals can be pressured to hand over the information or be fined (again). The scope of the inspector’s discretion is cryptic, but as the session discussions revealed, it could be excessive and based on practice.

Day 1

• All the judges of the Constitutional Court attended the preliminary hearing, except for Judge Irine Imerlinshvili, who was said to be absent for health reasons.
• The Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Merab Turava, announced that another, fifth, separate lawsuit challenging the Foreign Agents Law had been filed with the Court two days earlier by the Association of Law Firms of Georgia (ALFG), but due to procedural rules it couldn’t be consolidated with other cases.
• Georgian Dream members Anri Okhanashvili, Tengiz Sharmanashvili, and Archil Gorduladze, who were designated to represent Georgia’s Parliament at the Court, did not show up for the session. The defendant side was represented by the Parliament staff members. 
• The Georgian Public Ombudsman Levan Ioseliani submitted an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief to the Court, stating that the law “singles out a certain group of organizations and attributes a new status to them, which results in stigmatizing the organizations on the basis of foreign funding and hinders their work.”
• Judge Eva Gotsiridze clarified that during the preliminary hearing, the Court will only decide which constitutional articles cited in the lawsuits will be admitted for deliberation. Therefore, the plaintiffs must elaborate on which and how specific provisions of the law violate which articles of the Constitution.

• Zurab Macharadze, Deputy Parliamentary Secretary to President Salome Zurabishvili and one of her representatives in the Constitutional Court, spoke of the constitutional articles that the law as a whole essentially violates, including Article 78, which obliges all constitutional bodies to ensure Georgia’s full integration into the EU and NATO. Noting the numerous statements by Western leaders against the law since its re-introduction, he said it was clear that the law would prevent Georgia from joining Western institutions. He argued that the law and its various provisions also contradict Article 12 on the right to free personal development, Article 17 on the right to freedom of opinion, information, mass media and the Internet, Article 22 on freedom of association, and Article 31 on procedural rights. 
• Eka Beselia, former MP, lawyer, one of the representatives of President Zurabishvili in the Constitutional Court highlighted the continuous negative impact of the law on the country and its citizens, detailing as “important signals” specific critical statements from the West and the suspension of several key Western-funded projects, as well as the first sanctions. She stressed, however, that the “chilling” and “repressive” provisions of the law are yet to come as of September 1 [when the Ministry of Justice will begin to monitor organizations and impose heavy fines on them, which will gradually lead to a serious obstruction of their work] and the country’s chances of European integration will suffer with the consequences, which she stressed will be “irreparable.” Eka Beselia called on the judges of the Constitutional Court to temporarily suspend the law pending its final annulment. She told them, “No one will be harmed if you suspend this controversial law…Only some people who passionately protect this law in contravention to the interests of the country, will get mad.”
• Giorgi Burjanadze, former Deputy Public Defender, the third representative of the President in the Constitutional Court, began his speech by noting that no constitutional court in the world has ever abolished such laws, which he said happens because of the influence of the states on the judiciary in such countries. Judge Merab Turava interrupted him by saying that the study of the judges had found such a case from the Australian Constitutional Court, where, he said, “the transparency law… withstood constitutional scrutiny,” although he did not wish to get into the details of whether the content of the Australian and Georgian laws was similar. Burjanadze responded by emphasizing that the Georgian law was inspired by the Russian model, citing the legal opinions of the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR. He spoke of the specific human rights problems that the law creates: 1. Stigmatization, as the labeling of human rights organizations as “foreign agents” will hinder their work for the benefit of society; 2. Confidentiality: The law requires organizations to disclose the names of people working for them. He noted that many Georgian organizations work on documenting the human rights situation in the occupied territories, for which some of their members live there and are paid some money. Burjanadze warned that revealing the identities of people in the occupied territories who work for CSOs based in Georgian-controlled areas poses a threat to their right to health and life;3. Monitoring organizations, especially media organizations, creates a risk of violating the confidentiality of journalists’ sources and harming whistleblowers, and generally exposing the organization’s sensitive information. 

• At 13:30 local time, the Court took a one-hour break. 
• The Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Merab Turava, resumed the hearing.
• Ketevan Eremadze, a former Constitutional Court judge, elaborated that the ultimate target of the law could be not only CSOs with foreign funding, but any critical voices, including individuals. She spoke of her vision of the role of the Constitutional Court in the case: “Today the Constitutional Court, as never before in the history of this Court…has a great honor, historic, absolutely unique opportunity, but also a constitutional duty…to protect the European future of your country,” she said. Eremadze spoke about the problems of stigmatization of CSOs, emphasizing the negative connotations of terms such as “entity pursuing interests of foreign power”, “foreign power”, “agent”. She excluded that these terms can have positive connotations. She also spoke about the disproportionality of the high fines, suggesting that they could ultimately lead to the elimination of the CSOs, and noted the importance of a timely decision by the Constitutional Court to temporarily suspend the unconstitutional provisions of the law. 

• Tamar Kordzaia, an opposition MP and member of the Unity-UNM platform, spoke mainly about the law’s incompatibility with Article 78 of the Constitution, which requires each constitutional body to do everything in their power to ensure the country’s integration into the EU and NATO. She quoted some recent statements by the German Ambassador and the EU Ambassador to Georgia, which suggest that the country cannot move forward on its EU integration path with this law. 
• Ana Natsvlishvili, another opposition lawmaker, a member of the Strong Georgia political coalition from Lelo, demonstrated the harm of the law in her long speech that included many references to Georgia’s past and Soviet repression. She also stressed that the Constitutional Court now possessed a chance to resume Georgia’s integration into the EU. Natsvlishvili also spoke about the problems the election monitoring that CSOs will face as election observers. 

• Gela Mtivlishvili, former lawyer, editor-in-chief of the independent publication “Mtis Ambebi” (Mountain Stories), one of the initiators of another lawsuit filed by journalists, spoke about the work of the media organizations headed by him and another plaintiff, the head of the investigative journalism outlet “Studia Monitori”. He said that neither of the two media organizations intends to register in the “derogatory” register, although the absolute majority of their funding comes from foreign sources. He also refuted that the term “foreign power” can be positively perceived by showing the court photographs of intimidating, derogatory writings with the words “agent,” “traitor to the country,” and others that some allegedly government-paid thugs wrote on his home and office walls during the protests against the Foreign Agents Law, asserting that the incidents were the very first effect of the law. At the end of his speech, he also asked the judges to temporarily suspend the practical provisions of the law.

• At 17:00 local time, the Court took another half-hour break. 
• The hearing resumed with Giorgi Davituri, representative of the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI), addressing the Court. Davituri discussed the negative connotation of the term “entity pursuing interests of foreign power” which he asserted stigmatizes the organizations. (One of the judges asked several times for an explanation why the term is understood negatively a priori when the organization is doing socially beneficial, good work of which it should be proud). He spoke about the “irreparable” harm the law will cause, asking for its temporary suspension. He noted that beneficiaries may lose trust in organizations knowing that they are being monitored by the Justice Ministry, which might put their personal information at risk of disclosure.

• The Court’s preliminary session gave words to the defendant side, represented by the Parliament’s staff. 
• Kristina Kuprava, Head Specialist of the Group of Parliamentary Representatives to the Constitutional Court,  started by making a disclaimer that the defendant does not appraise the work of CSOs or media organizations as negative. However, she emphasized that civil society and media organizations have a “considerable impact on formation of public opinion.” She spoke about the transparency issue, saying that society has every right to know about the work and funding of these organizations. Kuprava sought to downplay the plaintiffs’ view that the law harms organizations by attaching them a stigmatizing label of “entities pursuing the interests of a foreign power”. She spoke at length about the controversial terms used in the law, attempting to convince judges in their neutral nature, while also diving into the linguistic analysis of the Georgian terms “foreign”, “foreign power” and organizations “pursuing the interests of foreign power”. Moreover, she kept repeating that these terms “state the fact” that the organizations receiving funds from foreign powers are by default pursuing these powers’ interests. To put it simply, she said “money comes with interests.” She went on to talk about the two reasons the law [claims to] serve: to ensure the transparency of civil society and media organizations and (by ensuring their transparency) to strengthen state sovereignty. Contrary to the statements of Western leaders against the law, she claimed that the law would, in fact help implement one of the EU’s nine conditions for Georgia, the one on transparency. 
• Levan Ghavtadze, another Head Specialist of the Group of Parliamentary Representatives to the Constitutional Court, also sought to state that the law does not stigmatize civil society and media organizations by stretching his colleague’s linguistic points about the connotations of the terms “foreign,” “foreign power,” and “entities pursuing the interests of foreign powers.” Ghavtadze repeatedly insisted that the law only requires organizations to make their funds transparent and brushed aside issues related to personal life, heavy fines, and other points brought up by the plaintiffs. Thus, he argued that the Constitutional Court should not consider as valid alleged violations of the Constitution’s Article 17 on the right to freedom of opinion, information, mass media and the Internet, and Article 22 on freedom of association. As for the well-known Article 78, prescribing Georgia’s full integration into the EU and NATO – a point all plaintiffs argue the entire law fundamentally violates – the defendant suggested that the court could find a violation of this article only if an action that impedes Georgia’s integration process into the EU or NATO is taken “when there is no countervailing interest.” He presented a hypothetical scenario in which Georgia might refuse to “sign off” on joining NATO because it would have to “give up [occupied] territories” [which is a recounting of the old Russian anti-NATO narrative]. He argued that Article 78 would not be violated in such a scenario because Georgia would have a “countervailing interest” in retaining its territories and refusing NATO membership. He also downplayed the legal significance of statements by Western leaders cited by the plaintiffs in their lawsuits as evidence of Georgia’s setback on its Euro-Atlantic path because of the law. He claimed that “Georgia’s Euro-integration process is not stopped”. He repeated the GD narrative that Georgia was granted EU candidate status despite earlier calls by European leaders for Mikheil Saakashvili’s release. He concluded by urging the Court not to accept for deliberation the applicants’ claims for violation of Article 78.

Also Read:

• 02/09/2024 – Dispatch – September 1: Trial and Errors

This post is also available in: ქართული (Georgian) Русский (Russian)