The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has opened the substantive examination of the complaint filed by Georgian civil society and media organizations regarding the “Foreign Agents Registration Act” (FARA) and has issued written communication. This information is being reported by the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA).

According to GYLA, the complaint argues that the “Foreign Agents Registration Act,” adopted by the ruling party Georgian Dream, violates the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically: Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association); Article 10 (freedom of expression); Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination); and Article 18 (limitations on rights).

“As is known to the public, exactly one year ago, on April 1, 2025, Georgian Dream adopted the so-called FARA, which violates the Constitution of Georgia and Georgia’s international human rights obligations. Its purpose is to silence, discredit, and persecute independent civil society and media, including through the imposition of criminal liability. According to the communication received from the European Court of Human Rights on March 31, 2026, the Court has begun examining the case, which GYLA filed in 2025 on behalf of six applicants: three organizations (the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association and media organizations Studio Monitor and Georgia News) and three individuals (heads of the applicant organizations: Nona Kurdovanidze, Nino Zuriashvili, and Gela Mtivlishvili).”

While Georgian Dream considers this law analogous to the American FARA (“Foreign Agents Registration Act”), the U.S. FARA, adopted in 1938, was intended - given the historical context and according to interpretations by the U.S. Department of Justice and independent courts - not to restrict independent civil society or media organizations, but to expose agents of foreign powers acting against the United States. Moreover, the U.S. law applies in cases where foreign-funded individuals do not act independently and fully follow instructions from the foreign principal.

It is important for the Georgian public to understand that the real content of legislation is not determined solely by its text, and directly transplanting laws from other countries cannot guarantee identical functionality. A legal norm with the same wording can produce completely different outcomes in different jurisdictions and at different times, depending on the structure of the legal system, political environment, and institutional mechanisms.

GYLA’s complaint emphasizes that the Georgian Dream’s FARA violates the same European Convention rights mentioned above (Articles 10, 11, 13, 14, and 18).

The European Court has accepted the case in relation to all these articles, and its correspondence indicates that the Court may classify the case as one of significant impact. This means the ECHR will examine the case with priority because it concerns a fundamental legal issue, and the decision will set a precedent not only for Georgia but for all Council of Europe member states.

The complaint also argues that, alongside vague norms, the law grants unbalanced powers to the implementing authorities (formerly the Anti-Corruption Bureau - now its successor bodies: the Audit Office, the Prosecutor’s Office, and the courts), increasing the risk of arbitrary application. Furthermore, there is a strong chilling effect on those subject to enforcement.

From a procedural perspective, with the commencement of the substantive examination, the Court has posed questions that the State will need to answer. Notably, the Court emphasized that it must assess whether the State used restrictions on rights for hidden, non-conventional purposes - e.g., whether the real and dominant purpose was political retribution or silencing critical voices, which would inherently violate the Convention.

Questions raised by the Court include:

• Victim status: Can the applicants claim “victim” status under Article 34 of the Convention due to the law’s application? Did any provision of the law affect them?
• Privacy: Does the requirement to provide and label personal data constitute interference with applicants’ rights? If so, was this interference compatible with Article 8(2)?
• Freedom of expression and assembly: Did the law’s requirements (registration, reporting, disclosure, labeling, and documentation) violate applicants’ rights under Articles 10 and 11? If so, was the interference compatible with the Convention’s second paragraphs of these articles?
• Stigmatization: Does labeling organizations as “agents of a foreign principal” carry a stigmatizing effect in the Georgian language? Does it significantly restrain their activities? What objective evidence (public opinion studies, linguistic expertise) supports that this term carries a stigmatized connotation?
• “Foreign power” and “agency relationship”: Does the law sufficiently define these terms according to principles of necessity, relevance, and adequate justification? Is the relationship between “foreign principal” and national “agent” clearly defined to prevent broad or abusive interpretations?
• Proportionality of sanctions: Are penalties proportionate to the severity of the violation?
• Discrimination: Does the law discriminate against the applicants (Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 8, 10, and 11)?
• Effective legal remedies: Did applicants have access to effective domestic remedies (Article 13)?
• Hidden purposes: Did the State use restrictions on rights for purposes other than those permitted by Articles 8, 10, and 11 (Article 18)?

The State’s position was set for submission on July 21, 2026, after which the applicants will submit a written response according to procedural rules.

The public is reminded that the ECHR has already, in practice, concluded consideration of a joint complaint by 136 organizations and 4 individuals regarding the so-called “Russian law” (on transparency of foreign influence) – see Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association and Others v. Georgia, no. 31069/24.

GYLA, as the representative of the applicants, will continue providing updated information to the public.