“The European Union Ambassador to Georgia must answer whether he knew that NGOs had not requested the suspension of the transparency law as an interim measure in Strasbourg, and if he knew this, why he concealed it from the Georgian Parliament and the Georgian population,” Georgian Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili told journalists.
Papuashvili responded to a journalist’s question regarding the statement by Nona Kurdovanidze, the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association Chairperson, that when appealing the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence to the European Court of Human Rights, they did not request the suspension of the law as an interim measure.
“This is scandalous information, which we have finally learned from GYLA after six months. As you may recall, I was publicly asking them to answer whether they had requested the temporary suspension of the transparency law from the Strasbourg Court, just as they had from the Georgian Constitutional Court, until the review process was completed. They avoided answering this question, and after six months, they finally admitted that they never even requested it. This is while the Constitutional Court accepted their lawsuit for consideration.
The transparency law is currently under review by the Constitutional Court, which did not grant the temporary suspension of the law, and this was followed by attacks on the Constitutional Court by extremist politicians and extremist NGOs. I remind you that representatives of the Soros Foundation, ISFED, and GYLA representatives themselves called them traitors and attacked the Constitutional Court while ultimately admitting that there was no basis for suspending the law.
Why didn’t they appeal, and what does this reveal? First, GYLA and the 100 foreign-funded NGOs that initiated this lawsuit admit that the transparency law does not pose any immediate risks or threats to them. They acknowledged this by not requesting a suspension and recognized that had they made such a request, the Strasbourg Court would have denied it. In contrast, in Georgia, they demanded a suspension of the law despite knowing they were not entitled to it. When the Constitutional Court justifiably rejected their demand, they made the Constitutional Court the object of attack,” Papuashvili noted.
The Parliament Speaker stated that he has long since ceased to have questions for foreign-controlled NGOs, as he believes that, in this case, the questions should be directed towards their donors.
“Among other sources, GYLA receives funding from Brussels. Thus, this six-month campaign against the Constitutional Court and the undermining of state institutions is backed by Brussels money. Consequently, the answers to questions about why propaganda methods and disinformation were employed to attack Georgia’s constitutional body must come from the EU Ambassador to Georgia, Mr Herczynski, as he financially supports these NGOs. He must provide answers, as it is likely he was well aware of the situation.
We previously discovered similar issues regarding the parallel vote count. I cannot accept that he did not inquire with these NGOs about whether an interim measure had been requested, as that was the main issue. They created a complete panic by claiming that the Constitutional Court did not suspend the law. I am convinced that Mr. Herczynski knew they had not requested the suspension of the law in Strasbourg. He was also aware that we were awaiting this information and that the Georgian Parliament was interested in knowing whether, amid the attacks on the Constitutional Court for not suspending the law, they had actually made such a request to Strasbourg. I am certain he understood this yet chose to withhold it from the Georgian people and government.
Therefore, the EU representation in Georgia must now clarify whether they knew that this extensive campaign, which was planned and executed with their funding—referring to the appeals—was merely a pretext for personal attacks on the judges of the Georgian Constitutional Court. Did he know that GYLA had not requested the suspension of the law in Strasbourg, and if so, why did he conceal this information? Thus, foreign-controlled NGOs are no longer the issue; their donors must be held accountable,” stated Shalva Papuashvili.
Additionally, during his conversation with journalists, Shalva Papuashvili noted that representatives of the non-governmental organization Sapari attacked the Georgian Minister of Foreign Affairs and later a journalist from the Public Broadcaster, which constitutes an attack and hate speech.
“This was an insult, an attack, hate speech—everything they purport to oppose in the name of European values. Just a few days prior, we observed the French Ambassador visiting this organization to express support. Not once did she consider it necessary to assess the situation when the female head of this organization, who leads a women’s rights group, used derogatory terms against a female minister and a female journalist, which we all witnessed. This silence from the French Ambassador only serves to encourage violent rhetoric, which often escalates into actual violence. Personally, I have questions solely for the donors; I have no inquiries for Sapari, GYLA, or ISFED. It is the donors who should provide answers. Specifically, the EU Ambassador to Georgia should clarify whether he knew that the NGOs had not requested the suspension of the transparency law as an interim measure in Strasbourg, and if he was aware of this, why he concealed it from the Georgian Parliament and the Georgian public,” declared Shalva Papuashvili.
