Published on 13 April 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 15763/25
GEORGIAN YOUNG LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION and OTHERS
against Georgia
lodged on 15 August 2025
communicated on 26 March 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application has been lodged by three civil society organisations (applicants nos. 1-3 in the appendix below) and three individual applicants (“the individual applicants”, applicants nos. 4-6), who serve as the managing directors of the first three organisations. The case concerns alleged interference with the applicants’ rights under Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 13, 14 and 18, following the adoption of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“the Georgian FARA”).
On 24 February 2025 a draft of the Georgian FARA was introduced in Parliament. The official Explanatory Note accompanying the draft stated that the law was largely a verbatim analogue of the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act (“the U.S. FARA”), with many of its provisions, including the principal concepts and definitions, replicated from the U.S. legislation. The Explanatory Note further indicated that the rationale for adopting the Georgian FARA was linked to the fact that the previously enacted Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence of May 2024 (for further details see the subject matter in Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association and Others v. Georgia, no. 31069/24) “has not fully achieved its goals”.
On 1 April 2025 the Parliament enacted the Georgian FARA, which entered into force on 31 May 2025. The law establishes a legal framework requiring certain persons connected to foreign actors to register in a special public register as “agents of a foreign principal”.
More specifically, under the Georgian FARA, “any natural or legal person” must register if they act “under the order, request, direction or control of a foreign principal,” unless they fall within a limited number of clearly defined exceptions. The registration requirement applies to persons who: (i) engage in “political activities”; (ii) serve “in a professional capacity as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant on behalf of a foreign principal”; (iii) “solicit, collect, disburse or dispense contributions, loans, money or other things of value in the interest of a foreign principal”; or (iv) “represent a foreign principal before any agency or official of the Georgian Government.” The Act defines a “foreign principal” to include (i) “foreign governments,” (ii) “foreign political parties,” (iii) “foreign organisations or companies,” and (iv) “individuals located outside Georgia” (see Section 1 of the Act).
Once registered, the person becomes an “agent of a foreign principal” and must comply with several obligations under Sections 2-5 of the Act. These include: (i) registration in a special public register of foreign agents; (ii) reporting and disclosure requirements, including the submission of regular reports on activities carried out for the foreign principal and the disclosure of funding sources and financial flows; (iii) labelling requirements, whereby materials or communications produced for the foreign principal must indicate that they are issued by a registered “foreign agent”; and (iv) record-keeping obligations, including maintaining detailed documentation on activities, contracts and financial transactions.
The Georgian FARA is enforced by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Georgia, which is responsible for maintaining the register, monitoring compliance and initiating enforcement actions (Sections 8-9 of the Act). The law provides for criminal penalties for violations such as failure to register, failure to disclose required information, the provision of false information, or non-compliance with reporting or labelling obligations (Sections 7-8 of the Act).
The applicants submit that, although none of the Georgian FARA’s requirements have yet been enforced against them, the enactment of the law itself constitutes an interference with their rights under the Convention. They further claim that no effective domestic remedies are available.
Citing Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 13, 14 and 18, all applicants submit that the Georgian FARA violates their rights to freedom of expression and association. They argue that the law reflects discriminatory treatment by the respondent State toward independent civil society organisations receiving foreign funding and is intended to hinder their watchdog activities under the guise of promoting transparency. In addition, the three individual applicants (nos. 4-6) complain that the requirement for individuals to disclose sensitive personal data as well as the labelling requirements under the law violates their right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 13, 14 and 18.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Can the applicants in the present case claim victim status under Article 34 of the Convention due to the operation of the Georgian FARA? Specifically, have any provisions of the Act been applied to them (compare Ecodefence and Others v. Russia, nos. 9988/13 and 60 others, § 80, 14 June 2022)?
2. Have the reporting requirement concerning personal data and the labelling requirements, as set out in Georgian FARA, interfered with the three individual applicants’ (nos. 4-6) rights under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
2.1. If so, was this interference compatible with the requirements established in the second paragraph of Article 8?
3. Has the operation of the Georgian FARA, including, inter alia, the operation of the registration, reporting and disclosure, (iii) labelling and record-keeping requirements, interfered with all of the applicants’ rights under Articles 10 § 1 and 11 § 1 of the Convention?
3.1. If so, was this interference compatible with the requirements set out in Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2 of the Convention?
– In this context, does the designation of relevant organisations as an “agent of a foreign principal” have a stigmatising effect, including in light of linguistic nuances specific to the Georgian language? Consequently, can this designation be considered to have significant deterrent impact on the organisations’ activities? What objective evidence (such as opinion polls, opinions by language experts), if any, supports the claim that the wording of the contested designation in the Georgian language carries a stigmatising connotation (see Kobaliya and Others v. Russia, nos. 39446/16 and 106 others, §§ 75 and 78, 22 October 2024)?
– Furthermore, does the definition of “a foreign principal” under the Georgian FARA align with the principles of “necessity,” “relevance,” and “sufficiency of reasons” set out in the second paragraphs of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? Has the Georgian FARA sufficiently addressed the relevant “agency relationship” between “foreign principles” and their domestic “agents” to prevent broad and potentially abusive interpretations (compare Kobaliya and Others, cited above, §§ 76 and 83)?
– Are the sanctions imposed for violations of the Georgian FARA proportionate to the gravity of the alleged offenses?
4. Does the operation of the Georgian FARA amount to discriminatory treatment of the applicants, in violation of Article 14 of the Convention, when considered alongside Articles 8, 10 and 11?
5. Did the applicants have access to an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 8, 10, and 11, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
6. Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicants under Articles 8, 10, and 11 of the Convention applied for purposes other than those intended by these provisions, in violation of Article 18 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth/
registration
Nationality/Country of registration
1.
GEORGIAN YOUNG LAWYERS’ASSOCIATION
1998
Georgia
2.
STUDIO MONITORI
2005
Georgia
3.
GEORGIAN NEWS LTD
2005
Georgia
4.
Ms Nona KURDOVANIDZE
1984
Georgian
5.
Ms Nino ZURIASHVILI
1968
Georgian
6.
Mr Gela MTIVLISHVILI
1983
Georgian