On May 21, “Georgian Dream” MP Salome Kurasbediani held a briefing, where she discussed the opinion published by the Venice Commission, which concerns the law “On Transparency of Foreign Influence” initiated and adopted by the ruling “Georgian Dream” party. Kurasbediani made several statements regarding the commission’s conclusion, noting that:
- In its opinion, the Venice Commission, instead of a legal evaluation of the documents, gave a political assessment of the street protests;
- The Commission labeled the issue of transparency of NGOs and media as undemocratic;
- it failed to present the legal instruments that ensure the obligation to fill out the declaration and transparency;
- The Commission did not provide legal justification when comparing the Georgian law with Russian, Hungarian, and Kyrgyz laws.
The article offers an analysis of statements made by Salome Kurasbediani, which are false or manipulative in nature.
Disinformation: “The Venice Commission, which until now was engaged in the legal analysis of documents, switched to a political assessment of the street protests”
The claim that the Venice Commission made an assessment of the current demonstration in Georgia in the opinion published about the Law on the “Transparency of Foreign Influence” is false. In the opinion, the protests are discussed only in the subsection “Background and context”, where the current events related to the initiation of the draft law, including protests, are described. The Commission itself does not assess these events and has cited the evaluations of the Public Defender of Georgia and various international organizations, for example the statements made by the President and Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as well as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Similar subchapters, where the circumstances related to the document under consideration by the Venice Commission are described, are found in almost all of the commission’s opinions. For example, in the opinion on amnesty in Spain published on March 18 of this year, one of the subsections also describes the developments in Catalonia, which are related to the amnesty initiative.
Disinformation: “In paragraphs 31, 62, 83, and 99 of the conclusion, the Venice Commission actually stated that one cannot demand transparency from non-governmental organizations… They even made the Venice Commission write that the transparency of NGOs and media is bad and undemocratic!”
No such statement can be found in the opinion of the Venice Commission. In fact, the Commission writes that increasing transparency regarding civil organizations may have legitimate objectives when it comes to maintaining civil order, especially to detect foreign interference in sensitive processes such as elections or political protests, as well as to detect money laundering and terrorist financing, however, the scope of these objectives needs to be clarified. An example is the case of Hungary, where the European Court of Justice concluded that increasing the financial transparency of associations is a legitimate goal, but it should not be done in a discriminatory manner and the measures taken should be proportionate and strictly necessary. In this regard, the Commission considers the broad definitions of terms and imposed restrictions in the law adopted by Georgian Dream to be problematic, which do not meet the democratic standards of legality, legitimacy, necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination.
As for the specific paragraphs:
Paragraph 31 states that “public disclosure obligation” (i.e. making public the source of funding and the identity of the donors) may only be justified in cases of political parties and entities formally engaging in remunerated lobbying activities.
Paragraph 62 states that enhancing transparency and accountability is an essential component of good public governance applicable to the public sector but not to private associations, unless they are funded from public sources or performing essential democratic functions, as is the case with political parties.
In paragraph 83, the Commission mentions that “the reporting obligations imposed on associations concerning the origin of their financing can be considered as pursuing the legitimate aim […]. To the contrary, the obligation to make public the information about the source of the funding (public disclosure obligation) does not appear to be capable of pursuing the same objective.”
In paragraph 99, the commission calls on the Georgian authorities to refuse to introduce a special regime of registration, reporting, and sanctions for civil society and media organizations, since the existing legislation already provides for appropriate measures for registration and reporting, and it is emphasized that the authorities cannot explain why this is not the case. In case the existing provisions proved insufficient, the Georgian authorities should consider amending the existing laws in compliance with European and international standards.
According to the commission’s conclusion, the law undermines the financial stability and credibility of organizations, the requirements stipulated by the law, severe administrative fines, and constant supervision will hinder their activities and question the existence of these organizations. The commission believes that stigmatization by the state will have a chilling effect and will eventually lead to the silencing and disappearance of those associations and media that receive even a small part of their income from abroad. The Commission notes that this is likely to affect organizations and media critical of the government, which will affect public debate, pluralism, and democracy. In conclusion, the commission calls on the authorities to repeal the said law, as it is fundamentally flawed and will have a negative impact on freedom of assembly and expression, privacy, involvement in public affairs, prohibition of discrimination, the existence of public discussions, pluralism, and democracy.
Disinformation: “All the norms to which the Venice Commission appeals in its conclusion cannot ensure the obligation of the NGO sector to fill in the financial declaration, nor the transparency of their finances.”
The Commission’s opinion directly mentions that the Georgian authorities failed to provide an explanation as to why the current legislation is not sufficient to ensure transparency.
In its conclusion, the commission listed a number of legal instruments that regulate the registration of non-governmental and media organizations and the transparency of finances. The conclusion lists the articles of the Civil Code, the Tax Code, the Law on Broadcasting, the Law on Electronic Communications of Georgia, the Law on Entrepreneurs, the Law on Lobbying, and the Law on Facilitating the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, which are used for the registration of non-governmental and media organizations and which oblige organizations to submit information about employees and their salaries, as well as information about financial plans of donors’ grants and projects.
The Commission’s opinion also mentions that there is already an electronic database managed by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Finance, where organizations voluntarily enter information about foreign grants and projects. The commission’s report lists several ways that can also be used to make associations more transparent, including introducing special tax rules or transferring foreign funds to specific bank accounts. The Commission emphasizes that there are particularly problematic measures, including the so-called Foreign Agents Act, at which point the government bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that such measures are indeed necessary. The measures taken must be based on an urgent need and not on a hypothetical threat and must respect the principle of proportionality. Based on the explanatory card attached to the draft law, the commission concluded that there is no such justification in this case, and no specific threats and risks were cited that would justify the adoption of this law. According to the information of the commission, no appropriate assessment of risks was conducted, and therefore the government did not present a justification for the need for the adoption of this law.
Manipulation: “The Commission states that the Georgian law on transparency contains similarities with Russian, Hungarian, and Kyrgyz laws. However, in paragraph 38 of the conclusion, only three lines are devoted to this issue, and the legal reasoning about it is not presented at all.”
This claim is manipulative since while the Commission does not go into detail about the similarities between the law adopted by Georgian Dream and the Russian, Hungarian, and Kyrgyz laws, extensive legal reasoning has been advanced as to why this law falls short of international standards, including in terms of protecting the freedom of assembly and protection of freedom of expression and privacy. The Commission cited the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice regarding similar laws in Russia and Hungary, where it is noted that the requirements and penalties provided for non-compliance in these laws are discriminatory and unjustified.
In addition, the commission cited arguments as to why the law adopted by Georgian Dream is not similar to the laws that are listed in the explanatory card – specifically, the laws in place in the USA and Israel. For example, it is noted that the American FARA does not provide for the registration of organizations only because they receive funding from abroad, and in the case of Israeli law, the law obliges the recipients of funding from a foreign state or an institution related to the state to register (when this funding is more than 50% of the income), and in the case of Georgia, foreign The definition of force is much wider and includes all foreign natural or legal persons.
The commission emphasized that the law explanatory card states that a comparative analysis was conducted taking into account the laws of the US, Australia, and Israel, although the section on consultations with public or international institutions or experts indicates that no consultation was conducted.
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
