On 25 June, the Communications Commission fined TV Pirveli 2,500 GEL for using terms such as “prisoners of conscience”, “oligarch” and others. Under the same regulatory provision, the Commission also found that the television channel Formula had violated Article 54(5) of the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting and imposed a fine of 2,500 GEL.

It should be noted that Article 54(5) of the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting, which concerns “fairness and impartiality”, is defined in very broad terms. As a result, the Commission is able to classify virtually any editorial terminology as an expression of “personal opinion” and “punish” media broadcasters on that basis.

This represents a classic defect in the legislation, manifested in its normative ambiguity, whereby those subject to the law are unable to foresee which conduct will result in sanctions and which will not.

Against the backdrop of the existing practice, it is possible to question the motives guiding the Communications Commission, as its monitoring and sanctions are directed exclusively at critical media outlets. At the same time, monitoring of broadcasters supportive of the ruling party consistently reveals “no evidence” of comparable violations. This, of course, creates the perception of selective enforcement, whereby the regulator uses the Law on Broadcasting as a political instrument solely against media outlets critical of the government.

The existing concerns are reinforced by the affiliation of the new Chair of the Communications Commission with the ruling party, as well as by the announcement of plans to regulate the editorial content of media outlets following the United Kingdom’s sanctioning of pro-government television channels. The practice of declaring media outlets in violation of the law based on complaints submitted by Georgian Dream creates a clear picture of regulatory capture.

This trend represents a continuation of democratic backsliding and the legal instrumentalisation of autocratisation, whereby existing institutions are maintained solely to provide an appearance of legitimacy. The problematic nature of the regulator’s current practice can be identified in the following areas:

• Legal uncertainty is becoming an instrument of repression;
• The anticipation of sanctions encourages self-censorship;
• The application of selective principles undermines the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law.

The combination of these three elements creates a severe regulatory practice and represents a deliberate project aimed at dismantling media independence.

The Democracy Research Institute calls on the Communications Commission to respect the law, restore the institutional independence of media regulation, and refrain from adopting decisions whose legitimacy is subject to question.