Media Constitutional Lawsuit: Why We're Demanding Suspension of Russian Law 

Through a constitutional lawsuit, we challenged the Russian law in relation to Articles 17 (the right to freedom of opinion, information, and mass media) and 22 (freedom of association) of the Constitution of Georgia.

Both media organizations produce journalistic materials with the support of donor organizations. Without grant support, neither of us would be able to operate.

The Russian law classifies the plaintiffs as "organizations carrying out the interests of a foreign power," i.e., foreign agents. This stigmatizing status is assigned to us because we receive more than 20% of our annual income from international donors. This is despite the fact that the funding is used to create quality journalism, inform the public, cover societal issues, protect human rights and freedoms, increase citizen participation and government accountability, and support the democratic development of the country.

The Russian law obliges us to register in the registry of organizations that cause discredit and to submit the corresponding financial declaration for this purpose.

None of us intends to voluntarily register in this defamatory and disparaging registry.

To dispel any notion that we are against transparency, as Georgian Dream and its propaganda channels often speculates, if the state genuinely sought additional information about grant funding rather than stigmatizing and targeting media organizations critical of the government, they would have amended the tax code. They would not have imposed this offensive status on us, required us to provide personal data, interfered with journalistic activities, or subjected us to excessive monetary fines.

During the past three days, as the plenum of the Constitutional Court considered lawsuits against the Russian law, it became increasingly clear that this law was enacted specifically for repression and ultimately for our dissolution.

Several small but crucial organizations around us have publicly announced the termination of their activities. Among them are highly qualified individuals who provided various services to socially vulnerable people, including women and children victims of violence, oppressed individuals, and other at-risk groups, leaving the civil sector.

Plaintiff Organizations and Government Persecution Before the Passage of the Disputed Law

Together with many other media and public organizations operating in Georgia, we categorically opposed the adoption of the Russian law, as it is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of the rule of law and democratic society. This is confirmed by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on a similar law in Russia, and the decision of the European Union Court of Justice on a similar law in Hungary. Additionally, the conclusion prepared in 2023 by the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE on the draft law initiated in the Georgian Parliament, and the emergency conclusion of the Venice Commission in 2024, further support this stance.

The contested norms directly or indirectly harm and violate the rights and freedoms of numerous media and non-governmental organizations and pose an existential threat to high-ethical-standard investigative journalism.

During the regulatory session held at the Constitutional Court, a question was raised regarding the potential positive content or interpretive possibilities of the term "carrier of the interests of a foreign country."

Marine Beridze, the chief scientist-collaborator at the Institute of Linguistics named after Arnold Chikobava at Tbilisi State University, and invited as an expert linguist, directly stated that

The phrase "carrying the interests of a foreign power" has only a negative connotation in the Georgian language.

Even before the adoption of the law, both Mtis Ambebi and Studio Monitori were repeatedly threatened and attacked by high-ranking government officials. For instance, in the case of Studio Monitori, insulting, defamatory, threatening, and inciting inscriptions and posters were placed on the walls of their work offices and editors' residences, and on the car of its head, under orders from the authorities. These inscriptions included terms such as "agent," "stateless," "traitor," and others.

Judge Merab Turava asked what these inscriptions have to do with the law and suggested, "Perhaps they should not adopt this law and the inscriptions had done anyway."

The law is directly related to these inscriptions, which were specifically intended to label the media as enemies, stateless, and sellers. Dimitri Samkharadze, a member of the parliamentary majority and the regional secretary of Georgian Dream, took responsibility for this. Even before the law was passed, we were labeled as agents in his blacklist. "We will give you back a thousand times worse, painful, and quality! You won’t even want to see each other; we will treat you like that! We know your identities one by one; your owners cannot save you," Samkharadze wrote,

The Venice Commission and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights have repeatedly stated that such a term is offensive and stigmatizing.

Media Organizations, the "Monitoring Mechanism," and Its Repressive Nature

The monitoring mechanism is particularly sensitive for media organizations, especially investigative media.

Investigative journalism is one of the most challenging fields. During their work, investigative reporters sift through a large volume of material, including public documents, various types of archives, and official correspondence. Investigative journalism relies heavily on working with sources, who often cooperate with the media on the condition of anonymity and confidentiality.

In the course of several journalistic investigations, we have invited scientists and experts, such as geologists, glaciologists, hydrologists, and public health specialists. With the funds provided by us, these experts traveled to research areas, conducted relevant work, collected samples, submitted them to laboratories, prepared conclusions, and provided scientific assessments under the condition of confidentiality, which we agreed upon from the outset.

Why should the authorities be concerned, for example, with which mountaineer or glaciologist I hired to document the causes of the Shovi tragedy? Why should I be required to provide the authorities with documents revealing the issues I discussed with these experts?

Based on the disputed law, "to detect the organization carrying out the interests of a foreign power or to verify the fulfillment of any of the requirements of this law, a person authorized by the Ministry of Justice of Georgia can at any time conduct monitoring - proper investigation and study of the issue."

Moreover, monitoring can be initiated not only by a decision of the Ministry of Justice but also by a statement from an anonymous person in the form of a "proper reference" (a written statement submitted to the Ministry of Justice of Georgia containing relevant information about a specific organization carrying out the interests of a foreign power, as outlined in Article 8, paragraph 2, subsection b).

Based on the Russian law, all individuals, bodies, organizations, and institutions requested by the person authorized by the Ministry of Justice of Georgia to submit information are obliged to immediately provide the requested information in their possession.

Beyond information containing state secrets, the contested norms do not impose any content limitations on admissible information. Consequently, the authorized person from the Ministry can request and receive both professional secrecy and special category data.

Whistleblowers play a crucial role in providing important information to investigative media. Furthermore, access to public information for critical and investigative journalists has alarmingly diminished over the past 2-3 years.

It became even clearer at the regulatory session in the Constitutional Court that

The National Public Registry Agency of the Ministry of Justice has no restrictions on requesting information containing professional secrets from media organizations.

The chairman of the public registry agency verbally stated that such information would not be published publicly.

According to the European Court of Human Rights, protecting the confidentiality of a journalist's source is one of the main prerequisites for ensuring press freedom. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the media in providing the public with important information, which can undermine the press's role as a "public watchdog" and limit its ability to deliver accurate and reliable information to the public.

The Law of Georgia On Freedom of Speech and Expression guarantees absolute protection of professional secrets and their sources: "The source of professional secrets is protected by absolute privilege, and no one has the right to demand the disclosure of this source."

Under Russian law, plaintiffs will face significant limitations in their ability to prepare investigative stories, and in many cases, they may be unable to do so, particularly concerning politically sensitive topics.

Fines and actual liquidation of claimants

Based on Article 9 of the Russian law, organizations have a deadline of September 2 to voluntarily register in the register of damage to honor and business reputation.

From September 3, the Ministry of Justice will forcibly register organizations as "carriers of the interests of a foreign power" and impose a fine of 25 000 GEL.

Organizations have approximately one month to pay the fine before their accounts and property are seized. If the organization does not submit a financial declaration within 10 days after the first fine is imposed, it will incur an additional fine of 10 000 GEL. Failure to submit the same documentation within the following month will result in an additional fine of 20 000 GEL.

We, as claimants, receive funding from international and local donor organizations in the form of projects. Since we conduct investigative journalism and frequently expose top officials or other high-ranking individuals in potential criminal activities, we do not have commercial or advertising income. Potential clients, fearing anticipated pressure from the government, are hesitant to cooperate with such media.

Each grant project agreement between the donor organization and the recipient specifies in detail how the grant amount should be spent on a monthly basis. None of the grant projects include costs that could lead to particularly high monetary fines.

Therefore, disproportionately high fines used to compel compliance with obligations that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed rights will quickly lead to our inability to continue operations.

The Russian law mandates implementation even concerning activities conducted before the law’s entry into force, which automatically designates us as a stigmatizing or discrediting "organization carrying out the interests of a foreign power."

The controversial law requires us to breach promises made to Georgian citizen donors, disclose personal data including bank account numbers to the Ministry of Justice - information not previously required by tax legislation either last year or now.

Granting us a stigmatizing status will significantly diminish public trust in the media, negatively impact donor support (donations), and result in the loss of our already scarce non-commercial income.

Article 22 of the Constitution

The Russian law fundamentally contradicts the standards of protection for freedom of association as outlined in the Constitution of Georgia and recognized by the European Union.

A key requirement for the smooth and effective functioning of freedom of association is gaining public trust. We, the plaintiffs, have been building our business reputation over the years. Our organizations unite people around shared ideas and values, leading them to engage in meaningful work. On one hand, the defamatory and stigmatizing status, and on the other, actions that damage dignity and business reputation, will lead to the stigmatization of the plaintiffs, the destruction of our social image, and contribute to creating a hostile environment towards us.

An offensive and disreputable status will significantly deter, and often completely exclude, individuals' willingness to join or be employed by such organizations, as the "agent" label impacts them personally.

Detecting agencies, anti-state activities, and criminal groups is the responsibility of the State Security Service and other investigative bodies. Registering in this register exposes media and non-governmental organizations to the risk of criminal investigation.

Therefore, we request that the contested law be suspended pending a final decision on the case, to prevent the irreparable harm that the Russian law will inflict.

When the Agents Law was passed in Russia in 2012, even those who immediately recognized the danger could not fully foresee the extent of the harm it would cause.

This law, which initially seemed less severe than the one adopted by 84 members of the Georgian Parliament, devastated Russia's free media, non-governmental sector, and freedom of opinion.

Georgian propaganda media is running a campaign similar to the one Russian propagandists have conducted for years against us.

Georgian-speaking propagandists hope to achieve the same outcome here as they did in Russia. However, this will not succeed if the Constitutional Court suspends the law.

"If you don't stop it, I'm sure you know, but I still want to tell you that at the initial stage, we, the people of free professions, will disappear. The Russian type of government, however, constantly needs victims. Therefore, next time, when the middle gathers and we are no longer people of our professions, it will affect everyone. You could be affected too," Gela Mtivlishvili, the editor of Georgian News, addressed the judges of the Constitutional Court.

To date, a total of four lawsuits against the Russian law have been filed with the Constitutional Court. The President of Georgia, 38 opposition deputies, and 122 non-governmental and media organizations are demanding the suspension and eventual cancellation of the law. The president and the politicians argue in reference to Article 78 of the Constitution (integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures). It is known that Georgia’s process of integration into the European Union has been suspended following the adoption of the Russian law. The plenum of the Constitutional Court is expected to decide in the next few days whether to accept the lawsuits for review on the merits, in what part, and whether to temporarily suspend the operation of the Russian law pending a final decision on the case.