Georgian parliament passes controversial amendments to Law on Common Courts

The Georgian Parliament, led by the ruling Georgian Dream party, has adopted a package of amendments to the Organic Law on Common Courts within just two days, using an expedited legislative procedure. The bill introduces significant changes to the judiciary system, sparking concerns over transparency and media freedom.

Under the new legislation, the rules for appointing judges are revised, their salaries increased, and the composition process of the High Council of Justice is modified. The amendments also expand the definition of an "interested party" and impose strict new limits on media coverage of court proceedings.

One of the most debated provisions effectively bans photo and video recording not only inside courtrooms but throughout entire court buildings and adjacent areas. The only exceptions will be recordings carried out by court staff or individuals specifically authorized by the court. Audio and video recordings of proceedings will now only be permitted if a formal motion is submitted and approved through a substantiated decision by the High Council of Justice.

The law also removes a previous provision that allowed nationwide broadcasters other than the Public Broadcaster to record court proceedings if the Public Broadcaster declined to do so. Previously, in such cases, other broadcasters could apply in writing before the hearing, and if more than one submitted requests, the judge would select one through a lottery. That possibility is now abolished.

Following the amendments, the right to photograph, record, or broadcast court hearings is now granted exclusively to the Public Broadcaster. If the Public Broadcaster chooses not to cover a hearing, other media outlets will be legally barred from doing so.

Another significant change removes a safeguard that prohibited the confiscation of personal items such as mobile phones, laptops, or recording devices from individuals entering court buildings. With the new law, such items may now be seized upon entry.

In addition, the accessibility of court rulings as public information has been limited. Judicial decisions will now only become publicly available after the final verdict enters into legal force. In practice, this means that decisions from lower courts will no longer be available to the public until the Supreme Court has issued its final ruling—potentially years later.

The amendments mark a substantial shift in court transparency and access to judicial information. Critics argue that these changes will restrict public and media oversight, limit accountability, and reduce open access to the judicial process in Georgia.