To silence critical media, “Georgian Dream” tries to use financial sanctions. Following several television, online and radio broadcasters, regional media have now also been affected. The practical consequences of financial pressure are already taking an irreversible form. In 2025, 17 regional broadcasters ceased operations. A particularly alarming manifestation of this process is the suspension of broadcasting by “Hereti” TV and “Radio Tbilisi”, which is directly linked to a decline in advertising revenues and the financial barriers faced by independent media outlets.

The state uses tax measures selectively against critical media. A clear expression of this approach is the potential suspension of broadcasting by TV “Trialeti”, which served as a key platform for independent editorial policy and an alternative agenda in Shida Kartli. While large broadcasters close to the authorities (for example, “Rustavi 2”) are allowed to restructure multi-million tax debts, the enforcement measures applied to a regional television company over a debt 50 times smaller, including seizure and freezing of assets, have resulted in the complete paralysis of broadcasting. This fact exposes the use of tax instruments as a mechanism of political repression, which directly threatens media pluralism in the regions.

A clear example of the use of state tax instruments on the basis of editorial orientation is the write-off of tax arrears for pro-government broadcasters, while critical media outlets such as “Formula” and “TV Pirveli” have had their property frozen by court order. This clearly constitutes a documented form of selective justice and politically motivated financial repression.

As a result of such pressure, “Mtavari Arkhi”, one of the country’s main critical broadcasting outlets, has ultimately ceased operations. Meanwhile, TV companies “Formula” and “TV Pirveli” are facing an immediate risk of functional shutdown. According to a principle established in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Manole v. Moldova; Informationsverein Lentia v. Austria), the closure of any media outlet constitutes a separate and irreparable breach of the State’s positive obligations in relation to media freedom.

A worrying trend is emerging in relation to the Communications Commission’s introduction of content control. The Commission no longer limits itself to general recommendations and has moved into a direct sanctioning regime, where the subjective interpretation of the “impartiality” standard is used as a punitive tool. In particular, the use of publicly acknowledged facts or established terms such as “oligarch” or “regime” has become grounds for financial penalties and legal proceedings. This practice exposes an attempt by the Commission to fully control broadcasting terminology, bearing the characteristics of classical censorship and aiming at the functional paralysis of critical media.

The legislative package adopted on 4 March 2026 represents the logical culmination of the state’s confrontation with critical media. It turns an alternative source of funding — international financing — into a criminal liability risk, which critical media outlets had previously relied upon for survival after being pushed out of the advertising market. This situation exposes a clear attempt by the state to establish a monopoly over the information space.

A consistent policy that begins with economic erosion, continues through criminalisation, and ultimately leads to the functional institutional paralysis and dismantling of critical media.

It is noteworthy that economic censorship is not limited to the television sector. State pressure on online media is being applied through different but equally effective instruments. Monitoring of critical content on social media platforms, together with the obligation for online outlets to register under the “transparency law”, collectively creates an environment in which self-censorship becomes a natural outcome of institutional pressure.

The Democracy Research Institute (DRI) calls for:

• The cessation of the process of selective justice, institutional neutralisation, and content control of the media, which contradicts Georgia’s European obligations.

It addresses international organisations and institutions:

• We call on the international community and relevant institutions to use all diplomatic and legal levers to protect media pluralism, freedom of expression, and the standards of the rule of law in Georgia.