On October 21, the founder of the ruling “Georgian Dream” party, Bidzina Ivanishvili, stated in an interview with journalist Magda Anikashvili on pro-government Imedi TV that the European Union was in the process of adopting a so-called transparency law but had halted its consideration. According to Ivanishvili, this was done to allow the EU to continue criticizing the similar law adopted in Georgia. Ivanishvili’s statement was disseminated by other pro-government media outlets (1, 2, 3).
Bidzina Ivanishvili: (1:03:45) “Our children must get used to critical thinking, and most of them do, but part of those who were aggressively against the ‘Transparency Law’—look today, the EU was adopting [such a law], you know, right? If we look at it from our constitution’s point of view, they had already adopted it in the first reading, and I asked one of our team members to verify, as it was written clearly that this must be halted because we can’t stop criticizing Georgia. They [the EU] have it themselves, many developed states have it, the EU itself was adopting it, but they halted it so that we wouldn’t adopt it—this is the whole truth.
On October 10, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze made a similar statement on the program “Free Space” on Adjara Public Broadcaster. He claimed that a law similar to Georgia’s “Transparency Law” was under discussion in the EU but the process was halted. According to the Prime Minister, the explanatory note for the law stated that its consideration was halted to allow the EU to continue demanding that Georgia revoke its version of the law. According to the Prime Minister, the EU approved the law but stopped the process due to this reason.
On October 11, Kobakhidze’s statement, along with similar reports, was widely disseminated by pro-government online media outlets (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), as well as pro-government TV channels like 1, 2), POSTV, and Rustavi 2. InterPressNews also published the Prime Minister’s quote without additional clarification.
Irakli Kobakhidze: “As you know, the EU was in the process of adopting an identical law, with exactly the same principles, and it was stopped. What’s interesting? An explanatory note has been officially published, and it says that if they adopt this law, they will lose the moral right to demand the withdrawal of the existing law in Georgia.”
The claim by Bidzina Ivanishvili and Irakli Kobakhidze that the EU halted the consideration of the “Transparency Law” to continue criticism of Georgia’s similar law is false. In reality, the EU has not halted the directive’s consideration, nor is Georgia mentioned in any explanatory note in this context. Notably, a report similar to what Kobakhidze referenced was published by the “European Partnership for Democracy” (EPD). However, the report does not state that the EU halted the law’s consideration or issued any such recommendation.
-
The EU has not halted the law’s consideration
Both Bidzina Ivanishvili and Irakli Kobakhidze are referring to the “Defence Democracy Package” presented by the European Commission on December 12, 2023. The package includes several new initiatives, one of which is the adoption of a new directive aimed at ensuring transparency in the activities of representatives of third-country interests. According to the European Commission, the purpose of the package is to ensure transparency and democratic accountability for lobbying firms and governments of non-member countries operating in the EU, and to harmonize laws for this purpose. The package is also intended to ensure the free and fair conduct of elections in European countries.
However, the EU has not halted the consideration of this law, and it continues to follow the usual procedures. During the legislative process, the EU distinguishes several statuses for a document: Legislative initiatives, Announced, Tabled, Blocked, Close to adoption, Adopted / Completed, Withdrawn. On the European Parliament’s website, where current or pending legislation can be monitored, this law is categorized as “Tabled.” The EU uses the status “Tabled” when amendments to the document have been submitted by members of the European Parliament, and the process is in the stage of seeking compromise to reach agreement. On another website owned by the European Parliament, which also monitors the legislative process, the directive’s status is marked as “awaiting committee decision.” A vote will be held once a compromise is reached.

In an interview with Adjara Public Broadcaster, Irakli Kobakhidze claimed that the reason for halting the law’s consideration is mentioned in the explanatory note and that it is public. The European Commission published an “explanatory memorandum” alongside the package, but it does not mention Georgia. Georgia is referenced several times in the directive’s impact assessment report, where it is discussed in the geopolitical context. For example, the document notes that laws like the “agents law” passed in Georgia restrict important elements of democracy, human rights, and civil space, while stigmatizing organizations and individuals associated with them. To support this point, the document mentions laws in Russia, Georgia, and Republika Srpska. From this report, it becomes clear that several EU member states expressed concern that similar measures could affect their diplomatic relations with third countries. The report clarifies that laws like the U.S. FARA or Australia’s equivalent do not affect foreign relations, but laws like those in Georgia, Russia, and Bosnia could.
Neither the “explanatory memorandum” nor the directive’s impact assessment report state that the EU should halt the adoption of the law to maintain criticism of Georgia’s “agents law.”
There is a long way from initiating a directive in the EU until its final approval. The process, as a rule, must be completed within two years.
-
The report from “European Partnership for Democracy”
It is likely that Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze is relying on the report from the organization “European Partnership for Democracy” (EPD). Pro-government media outlets cite this report to claim that the EU halted the adoption of the “Transparency Law.” The EPD was established in 2008 by several organizations and works to promote democratic engagement globally.
The report, published in January 2024, examines the “Defence of Democracy Package.” It indeed mentions Georgia in the context of 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.”
The report assesses the risks and positive aspects of the “Defence Democracy Package” and does not call for halting the consideration of the directive.
-
The EU is not adopting a law similar to Georgia’s
“Myth Detector” already analyzed this package last year, specifically the directive on transparency regarding third-country interference, which has often been manipulated by members of Georgia’s ruling party. Notably, the EU directive includes provisions such as registering in a transparency register for organizations engaged in activities representing the interests of third countries. Information about these organizations, including their annual income, primary goals, and activities, must be made accessible to the public. These organizations are also required to maintain records and retain significant information related to activities conducted on behalf of third countries for four years after the conclusion of those activities.
Unlike the law in Georgia, the EU’s proposed directive includes security measures to ensure that essential democratic rights, such as freedom of assembly and expression, are not infringed. According to the directive, there will also be an independent oversight body. Local governments will be tasked with ensuring that registration does not result in harmful consequences for organizations. Additionally, organizations will have the right, with appropriate justification, to withhold some of the requested information from the public.
False claims and visual manipulation related to the so-called “foreign agents” law and protests against it have been frequently circulated on social media. Myth Detector has systematically verified such posts. Furthermore, several articles were published earlier this year, debunking manipulative claims regarding the law.
Archive links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
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.