On 25 June, the Communications Commission imposed a fine of GEL 2,500 on the critical broadcaster TV Pirveli, citing the exercise of freedom of expression protected under editorial independence. Earlier, on 21 May, the Commission had imposed an identical fine, for the same reason and in the same amount, on another critical television broadcaster, Formula TV. Subsequently, on 16 June, the Prosecutor’s Office also initiated a criminal investigation based on a report aired by Formula TV.

• What Are the Allegations Against the Broadcasters TV Pirveli and Formula?

The Communications Commission reviewed the case of TV Pirveli on 18 June 2026 and announced its decision on 25 June. The decision to impose a fine on the broadcaster was supported by the Chair of the Communications Commission, Goga Guluordava, and three commissioners - Natia Kukuladze, Ivane Makharadze, and Ani Vazagashvili. Another commissioner, Ekaterine Imedadze, did not attend the hearing.

The Commission objects to the broadcaster’s use of the following expressions: “police officers serving as false witnesses,” “the Dream’s investigation,” “oligarch,” “non-existent crime,” “Ivanishvili’s regime,” “the oligarch’s party,” and “prisoner of conscience.” It argues that, by using these terms, the broadcaster violated Article 54(5) of the Law on Broadcasting by reporting on events on the basis of personal attitudes and/or opinions rather than in a manner consistent with the statutory requirements. According to the Commission, it conducted selective monitoring of news programs aired on TV Pirveli between 11 and 13 May and identified a total of seven instances that it classified as violations.

Earlier, on 21 May, the Communications Commission reviewed a case concerning Formula TV involving substantially similar issues and found the broadcaster in violation of Article 54(1) (impartiality), Article 54(4) (balance), and Article 54(5) (coverage based on personal attitudes and/or opinions) of the Law on Broadcasting. According to the Commission, the use of expressions such as “the Dream’s State Security Service,” “Ivanishvili’s regime,” “the regime’s prosecution service,” “the Dream’s Ministry of Internal Affairs,” “the Dream’s investigative agency,” “opponents of the regime,” and “the Dream’s Prime Minister,” among others, violates the principle of impartiality and presents events through the lens of personal attitudes and opinions. With regard to the alleged breaches of the principles of impartiality and balance, the Commission argued that the broadcaster had reported on one particular story without including the position of the Ministry of Health and/or its representatives.

The Communications Commission threatened critical broadcasters with the enforcement of the repressive amendments adopted in April 2025 - and the commencement of content-based monitoring of broadcasters - following the United Kingdom’s sanctions against the pro-government propaganda television channels Imedi TV and POSTV. In April 2026, the Commission first issued written warnings to broadcasters for using phrases deemed unacceptable by Georgian Dream and subsequently imposed financial penalties on them. Prior to this, leading figures of Georgian Dream had publicly expressed their full support for the sanctioned propaganda channels. GD Prime Minister, Irakli Kobakhidze, explicitly stated that the Georgian Dream government would take “every possible measure” to protect what he described as the “right to media freedom” of Imedi TV and POSTV. He also called on “all state-owned and private companies” to continue cooperating with the sanctioned television channels.

According to the Law on Broadcasting, in the event that the same type of “violation” is identified again with respect to critical broadcasters, the Communications Commission is already authorized to initiate discussions on the suspension of a broadcaster’s license/authorization. This is considered particularly alarming, and there was, from the outset, a reasonable assumption that the ultimate purpose of the repressive legislative amendments was precisely to paralyze critical broadcasters “in the name of the law.” This is further evidenced by the fact that the Communications Commission continues to selectively monitor the content of two critical broadcasters, while remaining silent on pro-government propaganda television channels that frequently use numerous derogatory and offensive terms and expressions against critics of Georgian Dream.

In any case, international practice and best standards indicate that such matters fall within the scope of editorial independence and should remain within the framework of broadcasters’ self-regulation. Their assessment should not fall under the competence of the Communications Commission. This is especially relevant in light of numerous legitimate questions regarding the Commission’s independence, including allegations of bias in favor of the government and of facilitating pressure against independent media. As a result, the issue of sanctioning senior officials of the Commission has been repeatedly raised in critical resolutions and reports of the European Parliament.

• What is the Prosecutor’s Investigation Against Formula About?

On 16 June, the Prosecutor’s Office announced that it had launched an investigation under Article 373(1) of the Criminal Code - “false denunciation” - based on a report aired by Formula TV. The case most likely relates to investigative reports broadcast by Formula TV in December 2025 and January 2026, which examined possible links between alleged corruption schemes and the filmmaker and supporter of Georgian Dream, Goga Khaindravа. According to the Prosecutor’s Office, Mr. Khaindravа has already been questioned in the case in the capacity of a witness. At this stage, it remains unclear whom or what the authorities are referring to as “false denunciation,” as no further clarification has been provided.

Journalist Davit Kashiashvili of Formula TV, whose authorial program aired the reports in question, was summoned by the Prosecutor’s Office for questioning on 25 June. There are suggestions that the investigation may be aimed at identifying the source of the information, while Davit Kashiashvili himself believes that he is the intended target of the inquiry. In any case, it is argued that initiating a criminal investigation on the basis of the broadcast is intended to intimidate journalists and potential whistleblowers. The concern is that, in the future, under the threat of legal prosecution, they may refrain from informing the public about possible corruption or other forms of wrongdoing.

It is also noteworthy that the Prosecutor’s Office initiated the criminal case in a context where, in March, Goga Khaindravа had already filed a defamation lawsuit against Formula TV. In addition to seeking a retraction of the information, he is also requesting a financial compensation of GEL 10,000 for alleged moral damages.

It is clear that the government of Georgian Dream is significantly discomforted by investigative reports produced by critical television channels regarding the possible involvement of its members and supporters in various corruption schemes or other types of alleged criminal activity. Rather than ensuring the objective investigation of such cases, it is argued that law enforcement and investigative bodies are being used as instruments to intimidate and pressure critical media outlets. It should also be recalled that, over the years, independent and critical media have reported on the alleged connections of numerous senior officials to various criminal schemes-cases which, today, investigative bodies aligned with Georgian Dream are themselves accusing those same officials of involvement in.

Initiating criminal proceedings against critical media outlets and journalists with the aim of revealing sources and/or exerting pressure is a practice characteristic of undemocratic or authoritarian regimes. Its purpose is to restrict the dissemination of information deemed undesirable and to impose psychological pressure on potential whistleblowers. Any government should bear in mind that the confidentiality of journalistic sources is guaranteed by law, and journalists are under no obligation to disclose them.

Conclusion

For years, the government of Georgian Dream has been attempting, through various means, to pressure, intimidate, and marginalize independent and critical media - whether through financial pressure, legal proceedings, or physical intimidation. Particularly concerning is the use of investigative bodies and the Communications Commission as instruments for sanctioning the media, creating a new type of threat in which journalists and media outlets may face fines and/or detention for criticizing the authorities.

“Transparency International Georgia” expresses its full support and solidarity with independent and critical media outlets and journalists, who continue to operate under extremely difficult conditions, and acknowledges the vital work they are carrying out at a critical moment for the country.