By Moreta Bobokhidze, ModusA, reading time 4 minutes
Georgia is once again confronting a wave of legislative initiatives that could profoundly reshape the country’s civic landscape. The latest amendments, introduced on 28 January, target the Law on Grants and six additional legal acts, prompting strong reactions from domestic and international human rights institutions. Among the most forceful critics is Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, who warned that the proposals are incompatible with Georgia’s obligations under international law. In his official statement, he urged Parliament to reject the amendments and called on authorities to reaffirm their commitment to protecting civic space and the right to freedom of association. The international organization OSCE responded with a tool, counterintuitively called “the Moscow mechanism”.
At the centre of the controversy is a sweeping redefinition of what constitutes a “grant.” Under the proposed changes, any cash or in‑kind transfer from one person to another could be classified as a grant if it is believed or intended to influence the government, state institutions, or any segment of society. This expansive definition departs sharply from established international standards, where grants are understood as structured, transparent financial contributions. In Georgia’s case, the new language is so broad that it risks capturing the ordinary, legitimate activities of civil society organisations, journalists, community groups, and even private individuals.
The Commissioner for Human Rights stressed that such vagueness invites undue state scrutiny. Activities essential to democratic life, public advocacy, policy research, community organising, and citizen engagement could suddenly fall under a regulatory framework designed for surveillance rather than support. The ambiguity also raises concerns about selective enforcement, where authorities could target critical voices under the guise of compliance monitoring.
Beyond definitional changes, the amendments introduce expanded restrictions and potential criminal liability. Legal experts warn that these provisions could create a chilling effect across the civic sector. Organisations may hesitate to accept funding, collaborate with partners, or engage in public debate for fear of triggering sanctions. Individuals involved in advocacy or community initiatives could find themselves navigating a legal environment where intent is interpreted broadly and penalties are severe.
These developments have not gone unnoticed internationally. In response to the growing concerns about democratic backsliding, a group of OSCE participating States invoked the Moscow Mechanism, a rare and serious diplomatic tool used to investigate grave human rights concerns.
The mechanism enables an independent expert mission to examine alleged violations, assess the impact of legislative changes on fundamental freedoms, and provide recommendations to restore compliance with OSCE commitments. Its activation signals that the situation in Georgia is no longer viewed merely as a domestic policy dispute but as a matter of regional democratic integrity.
As the amendments move through the legislative process, the debate surrounding them is likely to intensify. Whether Parliament chooses to adopt, revise, or reject the proposals will shape Georgia’s civic environment for years to come. The concerns raised by the Council of Europe and the invocation of the Moscow Mechanism highlight what is at stake: the preservation of fundamental freedoms, the protection of civil society, and the country’s alignment with European democratic norms.