The founder of a Batumi fitness club is asking Georgia’s Constitutional Court to strike down a law that criminalises political activity by businesses, in the first direct legal challenge to a March 4 amendment package the country’s private sector has labelled vague and punitive.
Giorgi Putkaradze, who started the Reformerfitness gym, is bringing the case with the backing of human rights lawyer Vasil Zhizhiashvili and the Association of Free Businesses, according to the Putkaradze Constitutional Court filing. He argues the amendments violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and free enterprise, and the case will test whether the Georgian Dream-led parliament’s package, which exposes companies to fines, prison time and possible liquidation for public political speech, can stand against the constitutional guarantees of free expression and free enterprise.
A Batumi Gym Takes On Georgia’s New Law
Putkaradze runs Reformerfitness in Batumi, the Adjara region on Georgia’s Black Sea coast. The fitness club founder says he has no intention of self-censoring while the Constitutional Court weighs the law. He framed business as the backbone of the country’s economy and said companies should actively participate in democratic processes.
He argues the legislation’s broad wording and “ambiguity” could allow authorities to selectively target businesses and impose punitive measures. He has called on other business owners to join the legal dispute. The Association of Free Businesses, one of the groups backing him, framed the challenge in broader terms, saying the case concerns the principles on which a free and competitive economic environment is based.
I believe that business, as the backbone of the country’s economy, should actively participate in democratic processes, express its views and respond to socio-economic and political developments.
Putkaradze, founder of Reformerfitness, in remarks reported by Georgia Today. The Association of Free Businesses, a co-sponsor of the filing, framed the same point in collective terms.
What the March 4 Amendments Criminalize
The amendments, adopted on March 4, 2026, created a new offence under Article 355³ of the Criminal Code titled “Political Activity of an Entrepreneurial Legal Entity.” The provision makes it a criminal offense for an entrepreneur, legal entity or its responsible representative to publicly engage in political activity unrelated to the entity’s primary business activity. The text defines “political activity” in unusually wide terms, drawing on definitions used elsewhere in the Criminal Code to cover acts aimed at influencing the government, state institutions or any part of society on domestic or foreign policy.
The definition sits inside a broader package adopted by the Georgian Dream-led parliament in its final hearing, which also touches foreign funding, political parties and “external lobbying.”
- New restrictions on foreign grants, with criminal penalties for grantees who fail to obtain government consent.
- A new ban on “external lobbying,” punishable by a fine, up to 500 hours of community service, or up to six years in prison.
- Eight-year bans on political party membership for those who worked at foreign-funded organisations.
- A new offence of “extremism” against Georgia’s constitutional order, with up to three years’ imprisonment for “systematic acts” directed at non-recognition of the government.
- Restrictions on businesses, the provision Putkaradze is now challenging.
Civil society groups and international watchdogs criticised the package before it was passed. The changes, per a March 2026 analysis of the amendments, “create meaningful legal uncertainty for donors and their partners” and “significantly constrain foreign-funded activities.” The business restrictions sit at the intersection of that broader crackdown.
Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili drew a clear line between individual business owners and the legal entities they run, arguing the disputed provision applies only to the latter. He added that companies adopting political positions could create a hostile environment for customers with different political views. He said companies should maintain equal treatment of all customers regardless of political preferences. That distinction is what Putkaradze’s challenge targets.
The Penalties Now on the Table
The penalties escalate in three stages, from an administrative fine for a single act to criminal liability and possible liquidation for repeated violations. ICNL’s March 2026 brief lays out the structure. The first time a business is found to have engaged in prohibited political activity, the consequence is a fine, not a prison sentence; it is the second and subsequent acts that cross into the criminal code and put the company itself at risk of being shut down.
The legal team argues the law is constitutionally vulnerable precisely because the wording is vague and selectively enforced. BLB called the combined sanction “an extremely repressive and disproportionate measure, for which there is no equivalent in the legislation of European states.” For businesses and their representatives, the practical question is what counts as “primary” business activity, given how broadly the amendments define political activity. That escalation, from a single fine to the potential shutdown of a company, is what Putkaradze and the Association of Free Businesses want the Constitutional Court to strike down.
A ruling in the government’s favour would lock in this new criminal liability regime for any Georgian business speaking on politics. A ruling against the law would unwind the criminal provisions entirely. The Constitutional Court will now weigh whether to back the law or the business community’s challenge to it.
| Stage | Trigger | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| First offense (administrative) | Public political act not tied to primary business activity | GEL 20,000 fine |
| Repeated offense (criminal) | After an administrative sanction | Fine of at least 100,000 GEL, up to 200 hours of community service, or up to three years’ imprisonment |
| Legal entity (criminal) | Same acts, against the company | Possible liquidation, in addition to the fine |
Why Lawyers Say the Law Breaches the Constitution
The legal team argues Article 355³ clashes with the Constitution of Georgia, the Civil Code and the Law on Entrepreneurs, all of which guarantee the freedom of entrepreneurial activity. The Constitution explicitly recognises and protects the freedom of entrepreneurship, and Article 17 protects the right to freedom of expression. Imposing criminal liability on a business for activity that is not tied to its “primary” purpose, BLB argues, “constitutes an undue and repressive encroachment by the State upon the private autonomy of the business entity, a autonomy expressly safeguarded by law.”
They also point to a 2001 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, which confirmed that legal entities enjoy the right to freedom of expression on matters of public interest. The BLB analysis argues the Strasbourg case law is directly relevant to Putkaradze’s complaint. Under the ECHR framework, restrictions on corporate political speech must be narrowly drawn; the Georgian amendments, the analysis says, fail that test.
A separate argument targets the “primary business activity” test itself. The Law on Entrepreneurs does not require a business to specify its field of activity with precision, and the BLB analysis says criminal investigators and prosecutors should not be deciding what counts as a business’s “primary” purpose. The same law, the analysis notes, makes no distinction between a business’s “primary” and “non-primary” activities, allowing a company to state in its charter that its purpose is entrepreneurial activity in general. The wording is being challenged as both vague and selectively enforceable.
Putkaradze has framed the constitutional test in the same terms, saying he will not self-censor while the case is under review and that he wants Constitutional Court judges to publicly state their position on the amendments. The Association of Free Businesses went further in a written statement, calling the case a defence of “freedom of expression, free enterprise and the independent voice of the private sector.” The Constitutional Court filing puts the package to a constitutional test.
Who Is Backing Putkaradze
Putkaradze’s lead counsel is Vasil Zhizhiashvili, a human rights lawyer who has practiced for more than five years defending individuals’ rights in both common courts and the Constitutional Court, according to his law firm GDI Legal. Zhizhiashvili also lectures at the Free University of Tbilisi. His involvement signals that the challenge is being framed as a constitutional test case, not a private commercial dispute.
The Association of Free Businesses is co-sponsoring the filing. Putkaradze has called on other Georgian entrepreneurs to join the dispute, broadening the coalition of complainants. The Association’s statement, framing the case as a defence of “the entire private sector,” makes clear the challenge goes beyond one gym in Batumi and turns on whether Georgian companies can speak on public policy at all.
The Government’s Defence of the Package
The government has so far kept its public defence narrow. Speaker of Parliament Shalva Papuashvili, who led the package through the chamber, said businesses have the right to appeal but must comply with the law while the Constitutional Court reviews it. He said companies that have filed an appeal must be willing to obey the law while the case is heard. The Speaker’s framing put the burden of compliance squarely on the businesses that challenged the law.
The Speaker also pushed back on the substance. Papuashvili drew a clear line between individual business owners and the legal entities they run, arguing the disputed provision applies only to the latter. He said companies adopting political positions could create a hostile environment for customers with different political views, and that companies should maintain equal treatment of all customers regardless of political preferences. The argument turns the test on its head: Papuashvili is asking why a company should be taking political positions at all. The criminal sanctions themselves go undefended in his public remarks.
The government’s narrow defence, focused on the legal-entity distinction and customer relations, leaves the substantive constitutional arguments largely unanswered. The Constitutional Court will have to weigh the parliament’s stated aim of protecting customers against the constitutional text’s guarantee of free expression.
Very good, they have the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court will judge. If they have appealed, then they should be willing to obey the law.
Shalva Papuashvili, Speaker of the Georgian Parliament, responding to the Putkaradze filing.
How the Constitutional Court Will Weigh the Case
The Constitutional Court of Georgia will examine procedural questions first, including Putkaradze’s standing and whether the case raises a constitutional question the court can answer. If the case is admitted, judges will consider whether Article 355³ is compatible with the constitutional protection of free expression and free enterprise. The government has stressed the right of businesses to appeal, with Speaker Papuashvili noting that any challenger must obey the law in the meantime. The case will give the country’s top court its first opportunity to rule on the March 4 amendments.
The stakes go well beyond one gym. A ruling against the law would unwind a central plank of the March 4 package; a ruling in the government’s favour would lock in a new criminal liability regime for businesses speaking on politics. International investors are already reading the amendments as a signal that, in Georgia, “the private autonomy of businesses and the freedom of expression are no longer protected,” per the BLB analysis; the wider stakes for Georgia’s courts are visible in another high-profile Georgian court case.
Putkaradze has framed the case as a question for every Georgian entrepreneur: whether they can speak on the country’s future without risking fines, prison and the shutdown of their companies. The Constitutional Court’s eventual judgment, on a date yet to be set, will be the first word from the country’s top court on the March 4 amendments.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Georgia’s new law on business political activity actually prohibit?
The March 4, 2026 amendments to the Criminal Code, codified as Article 355³, make it a criminal offense for an entrepreneur, legal entity or its responsible representative to publicly engage in political activity unrelated to the entity’s primary business activity. The amendments define “political activity” in broad terms that include any act aimed at influencing the government, state institutions, or any part of society on domestic or foreign policy.
What penalties do businesses face under the law?
The first violation is an administrative fine of GEL 20,000, equivalent to around USD 7,500. A second or subsequent violation after the administrative sanction triggers criminal liability: a fine with a 100,000 GEL minimum, up to 200 hours of community service, or up to three years in prison for the natural person responsible, and possible liquidation of the company itself.
Who is Giorgi Putkaradze?
Putkaradze is the founder of the Reformerfitness fitness club in Batumi, on Georgia’s Black Sea coast. He is bringing the Constitutional Court challenge with the backing of human rights lawyer Vasil Zhizhiashvili and the Association of Free Businesses.
When did Georgia’s amendments take effect?
The amendments were adopted by parliament on March 4, 2026, and entered into force on the date of their adoption, according to the ICNL’s March 2026 brief.
What is the government’s position on the challenge?
Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili has said businesses have the right to appeal the law to the Constitutional Court but must comply with the law while the case is under review. He has argued the provision applies to legal entities, not to individual business owners, and that companies adopting political positions could create a hostile environment for customers.
Disclaimer: This article reports on a Constitutional Court challenge to Georgia’s March 4, 2026 amendments to the Criminal Code. It is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal landscape is evolving; consult a qualified legal professional for current guidance. Figures and quoted statements are accurate as of publication.
