GYLA: Venice Commission Submits Critical Opinion on Georgia's 'Transparency Law' to European Court
By Liza Mchedlidze
Thursday, October 23, 2025
The Venice Commission has submitted a written opinion to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), criticizing Georgia's controversial "Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence," often referred to as the "Russian Law." The submission came after the Commission requested to join the case as a third party, according to the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA).
In its statement, GYLA said the Venice Commission's conclusion found that the legal framework established by the transparency laws violates key democratic principles. "According to the final conclusion of the Venice Commission, the legal framework created by the aforementioned laws violates the principles of legal clarity and necessity, and gives the government excessive discretionary power, which is inappropriate for a democratic society," the organization said.
The Venice Commission reiterated that it had previously assessed the Georgian Law on Transparency and found its regulations "inappropriate for a democratic society." It emphasized that any restrictions on civil society "must be narrowly framed, clearly defined, and accompanied by effective safeguards against abuse," and should not be used to stigmatize organizations based on their funding sources or perceived political views.
The Commission argued that the law fails to meet these standards, citing "overly broad and vague definitions" such as foreign power and organization pursuing a foreign interest, which leave many groups uncertain about their legal status and obligations. It warned that the law grants "excessive discretion" to the Ministry of Justice, lacks objective monitoring criteria, and allows the collection of sensitive personal data without justification. The absence of clear procedural safeguards, the opinion said, creates a "manifest risk of arbitrary enforcement."
The document further stated that "transparency alone is not recognized as a legitimate ground for restricting fundamental rights" under the European Convention on Human Rights. Any limitation of such rights must serve concrete public interests, such as national security or public safety. "Merely increasing transparency cannot justify indiscriminate restrictions of fundamental rights," the Commission noted, adding that limiting the work of civil society organizations undermines democratic debate and pluralism.
The Venice Commission also criticized the law for breaching the principle of proportionality, warning that it threatens the financial sustainability of smaller organizations. It expressed concern that the combined and discretionary application of the Transparency Law, the legislation on foreign influence (GEOFARA), and the Law on Grants could lead to "disproportionate restrictions on freedom of association."
"These measures create extensive and overlapping obligations, coupled with severe liability provisions, which disproportionately burden and subject to control those engaged in democratic oversight and the advocacy of rights," the Commission concluded. The body ultimately found that the overall framework is "incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and necessity in a democratic society."
