The Expert Council on NGO Law, a body of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe, has issued an opinion warning that Georgia’s controversial Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) would cause “grave and unjustified” harm to civil society if implemented, and calling for its repeal.

The law, adopted by the ruling Georgian Dream party and taking effect in May 2024, requires organisations and media outlets receiving more than 20% of their funding from abroad to register as “agents of foreign influence”.

Georgian authorities have already begun implementing the law. The country’s Anti-Corruption Bureau has sent inspection notices to seven civil society groups, suggesting their work could constitute “political activity” and demanding explanations for their refusal to register under the Act. The bureau also warned of criminal liability.

The affected organisations insist the law does not apply to them and have refused to register. In its August 25, opinion, the Expert Council said that “the implementation of the Act will cause grave and unjustified damage to civil society in Georgia, will be inconsistent with a wide range of commitments that this member state of the Council of Europe has undertaken and will thus be entirely inappropriate.”

The opinion found that Georgian Dream’s FARA fails to meet the conditions under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that would allow restrictions on fundamental rights. It noted that the law would affect freedoms of association, expression, and respect for private life, all of which can only be limited if restrictions are prescribed by law, have a legitimate aim, and are necessary in a democratic society. The council concluded that the Georgian legislation failed to meet any of these conditions.

According to the opinion, “the requirements imposed by it cannot be regarded as sufficiently prescribed by law.” At the same time, “there are serious doubts as to whether the adoption of at least some of the provisions in the Act can be regarded as having a legitimate aim.” Furthermore, “the implementation of the Act cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.”

The council also rejected the Georgian government’s defence that the law is based on the United States’ 1938 FARA, noting that the fact it is “an analogue of the US FARA is not in itself a reason to regard its provisions as necessary in a democratic society, not least since it has not been evaluated for compliance with the rights guaranteed by the ECHR.”

The opinion criticised the Georgian law’s scope, saying it could apply to civil society organisations with no actual but only supposed ties to foreign principals. Receiving foreign funding or using outside expertise, it argued, does not mean groups are acting on behalf of foreign powers, adding that many governments themselves receive such foreign assistance.

It further warned that the law’s broad definition of “foreign political party” could inhibit national minorities from maintaining peaceful cross-border contacts or participating in international NGOs. The demand for detailed reporting of “each activity (including political activity)” was deemed an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression and interference with private life.

On requirements to disclose extensive personal data of directors, managers, and employees, the opinion said these were “beyond what is necessary in a democratic society” and excessive compared with the goal of countering foreign interference. It also condemned the obligation for CSOs to keep records for three years after ceasing to operate as “agents,” and for directors to remain responsible for filings even after an organisation is dissolved, describing this as “unduly burdensome.”

The council raised concern that, even though the law does not formally label organisations as “foreign agents,” being subjected to it effectively brands them as such, signalling that they carry out work on behalf of foreign principals. It also warned against “excessive penalties” for non-compliance.

"Having regard to the inevitable effect of the Act’s provisions in precluding NGOs from seeking access to foreign support for the pursuit of objectives entirely consistent with European standards, the excessive obligations to disclose personal data, the unrestricted scope of the demands for supplementary information that can be made, the burdensome record-keeping required and excessive nature of the penalties that can be imposed, the measures contained in the Act cannot be considered necessary in a democratic society," it concluded. The opinion urged the Georgian government to repeal the law.

The controversy comes amid mounting concerns about Georgia’s democratic trajectory. The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), Georgia’s most prominent election watchdog, has announced it will not observe the upcoming October 4 local elections “with a standard observation mission”, citing the lack of conditions for free, fair, and competitive polls. ISFED pointed to the same three principles outlined by the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters — respect for fundamental rights, stability of electoral law, and procedural guarantees — which it said had “largely not been met”.

Opposition parties have also announced boycotts of the municipal elections, saying participation would legitimise Georgian Dream’s rule amid ongoing anti-government protests and state repression. With the OSCE/ODIHR not invited to monitor the vote, the elections are likely to proceed without full-scale international oversight.