Scroll Top

Publications

Georgian Prime Minister claims that EU ‘Officially halted’ draft law identical to Georgia’s Foreign Agent Bill, but it’s false

This article was originally published by FactCheck Georgia

During his appearance on the Public Broadcaster Ajara TV show Tavisupali Sivrtse (Free Space), Prime-Minister Irakli Kobakhidze stated: “As you might already know, the European Union previously initiated a process to adopt an identical law with the same principles, but it was later halted. The official explanatory memorandum states that by passing this law, the EU will no longer have the moral right to request that Georgia withdraw its version of the law. Just imagine the state of EU institutions and the influence campaigns that destabilise the situation within their structures. They believe that this law is correct but cannot pass it, as then they would have to stop demanding that we withdraw our identical law.”

FactCheck assessed Irakli Kobakhidze’s claims.

The Prime Minister was referring to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council, “establishing harmonised requirements on transparency of interest representation carried out on behalf of third countries,” which is part of the Defence of Democracy Package. The Georgian Dream political party has consistently utilised the aforementioned directive to draw parallels to Georgia’s version of the law on transparency, portraying the two as analogous. FactCheck Georgia has previously assessed – also on EDMO – this comparison to be false.

The Prime Minister claims that “a process to adopt an identical law in the EU has been suspended.” However, in reality, this information is inaccurate. The Directive is currently undergoing reviews by co-legislators, indicating that it is in line with official procedures. Peter Stano, Lead Spokesperson for the External Affairs of the EU, confirmed this information to FactCheck. In response to FactCheck’s questions, whether the review procedures for the Directive had been halted and if the reason cited by the Prime Minister was mentioned in the EU’s explanatory memorandum, Peter Stano stated: “It is incorrect to say that the EU proposal is halted – the proposal is currently with the co-legislators, which means it follows the usual procedure.”

Moreover, the PM claimed that the reason for halting the proposal for the directive was officially published in the explanatory memorandum. An explanatory memorandum is an official document appended to a legislative act that explains the content and objectives of the project. The existing explanatory memorandum was issued in December 2023, when the Commission presented its proposal, and nowhere in the document is stated that, should the directive be approved, the EU will no longer have the moral right to request that Georgia withdraw its version of the law. On the contrary, it is clearly stated that the approach of the directive “differs radically from those observed in certain other jurisdictions (characterised as ‘foreign agent’ laws)”, like the Georgian one. Should the EU decide to revoke or suspend the directive, a new explanatory memorandum would be published to motivate the decision, but the EU institutions have not published a similar document or any other explanatory note regarding the Directive on “transparency of interest representation” because the process has not been halted and the procedures are being followed as intended, as mentioned above. Therefore, the assertion that the legislative process in the EU has been delayed due to issues related to Georgia is both inaccurate and absurd.

Irakli Kobakhidze was likely referring to the critical recommendation, entitled A Closer Look at the Defence of Democracy Directive and the Controversy Surrounding It, published by the European Partnership for Democracy (EPD) in January 2024.  The EPD is not an EU institution and it is not part of the EU legislative processes. It is a network of non-commercial organisations, united with an aim to support democratic governance, human rights and civil society worldwide.

The document published by the EPD urges the co-legislators to thoroughly assess the Directive and, even if it acknowledges foreign interference as a real danger for democracies, it considers the Directive as unlikely to be effective and it warns about the risk that the Directive may ultimately bring more harm than good. The EPD has raised several key concerns regarding the Commission’s proposal, including negative geopolitical consequences, the risks of stigmatising communities, heavy administrative burdens, etc. Notably, Georgia is mentioned in the subsection of the document which assesses negative geopolitical consequences.

“Regarding the geopolitical consequences, the Directive will undermine the EU’s future diplomatic efforts addressing restrictive foreign-funding legislation. In the past, the EU has been critical of the ‘foreign agent’ laws adopted in other countries, such as in Georgia and in Republika Srpska. Adopting this Directive means the EU will lose the ability to legitimately criticise discriminatory laws around the world. What is more, other authoritarian regimes could take inspiration from the EU Directive, making it the basis of their own future restrictive regulations. We recognise that the EU proposal is not as restrictive as other laws around the world but it is impossible to ignore the fact that it will be weaponised by those seeking to undermine independent media and civil society”, according to EPD.

Given the fact that the EU has not halted passing the EU directive and that the EU institutions involved in the legislative processes have not published any new explanatory memorandums regarding the EU Directive, FactCheck concludes that Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s statement is FALSE.