On October 8, the European Parliament adopted a resolution regarding attempts by Georgia's ruling party to secure a ban on opposition parties in the country. The document was supported by 445 MEPs, with 37 voting against. The resolution was drafted following a debate on the situation in Georgia held the previous day.
The initiative for the document came from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group, which was previously a political ally of Georgian Dream.
In the adopted document, the European Parliament demanded the withdrawal of the constitutional lawsuit against opposition parties and reiterated its call for the release of individuals it considers political prisoners. MEPs also supported the imposition of targeted sanctions and visa restrictions on individuals deemed responsible for political persecution and the erosion of democratic norms.
Georgian politicians named as targets for such measures include Georgian Dream’s Honorary Chairman Bidzina Ivanishvili, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze, Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili, and Tbilisi Mayor Kakha Kaladze.
The European Parliament also expressed specific concerns regarding the independence of Georgia’s Constitutional Court following the appointment of new judges on September 23. The resolution notes the closure of the Tbilisi offices of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation after Georgian authorities rejected funding applications for their projects. The document also highlights pressure exerted on journalists covering the authorities' actions against the opposition and civil society.
The Georgian parliament filed the constitutional lawsuit seeking to ban opposition parties in November 2025. Initially, it concerned the United National Movement, the Coalition for Change, and Strong Georgia – Lelo. Later, the Federalists and Gakharia for Georgia were added to the list.
Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze had previously dismissed criticism from the European Parliament, stating that attempts by European institutions to influence the consideration of the constitutional lawsuit constituted political interference in the work of the Constitutional Court. According to him, such actions would yield no results.
