Press & civil society
Foreign Agent Laws Explained: What the Venice Commission Has Said
Foreign agent laws, in the sense used by the Venice Commission, are statutes that create a special category for organisations, media outlets or individuals linked to foreign money, then attach registration, reporting, public labelling and fines to that category. The Venice Commission, formally the European Commission for Democracy through Law, accepts that transparency about foreign funding can be justified in some settings, but across several opinions it has found that regimes built on a funding threshold and a stigmatising label fail the tests of the European Convention on Human Rights.
What is a foreign agent law?
The Venice Commission notes that "foreign agent" is the most common term in this field but not the only one. Hungary, for instance, used the label "organisations receiving support from abroad" in a 2017 draft that was later adopted and then abolished. Russian federal law N. 121-FZ, which the Commission assessed in 2014, required non-commercial organisations to register as foreign agents if they received funds from foreign states and took part in what the law defined as political activities.
In 2022 the European Court of Human Rights examined the Russian regime in the case Ecodefence and Others v. Russia. As summarised by the Commission, the Court held that a new category of foreign agent organisations, onerous auditing and reporting duties and excessive and arbitrary fines were not necessary in a democratic society.
How do these laws differ from the US Foreign Agents Registration Act?
The Commission has explained that the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938 and targets those acting at the specific direction and control of a foreign principal. Under FARA one does not have to register simply because one receives funds from a foreign source, and the Commission reports that only around 5 percent of FARA registrants are non-profit organisations. The Commission adds that it was assessing Georgian law, not endorsing the legislation of other countries.
The table sets three regimes side by side as the Commission described them in its 2024 opinion on Georgia.
| Regime | Trigger | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| US FARA (1938) | Acting at the specific direction and control, and on behalf, of a foreign principal | Registration of an agent of a foreign principal |
| Israel (as described by the Commission) | Main financial support from foreign governments or state agencies, more than half of funds | Disclosure in public reports, advocacy material and dealings with officials |
| Georgia, Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence (2024) | More than 20 percent of annual income from a foreign source, including private individuals | Registration as an organisation pursuing the interests of a foreign power, annual declaration, fines |
Source: Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2024)020, paras 40, 41, 48 and 49
Which tests does the Venice Commission apply?
The Commission treats reporting of foreign donations and public registration or labelling as an interference with freedom of association, freedom of expression, private life and non-discrimination. A restriction must satisfy legality, legitimacy and necessity with proportionality cumulatively, and it must not be discriminatory in nature or effect.
The Commission has accepted that "it is justified to require the utmost transparency in matters pertaining to foreign funding", and it recognises that some associations, typically political parties, may be barred from foreign funding. At the same time it states that transparency as such is not among the legitimate aims listed in Article 11(2) of the Convention, and that foreign agent legislation is among the measures where an enhanced burden of proof lies on the State.
What did the Commission conclude about Georgia's 2024 law?
Georgia's parliament adopted the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence on third reading on 14 May 2024. The Commission issued its urgent opinion on 21 May 2024, at the request of the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and endorsed it at its 139th plenary session on 21 and 22 June 2024. It found the law incompatible with the Convention and the ICCPR on five points:
- Legality: the law lacks precision, covers a very wide set of entities and leaves excessive discretion to the Ministry of Justice.
- Legitimacy: the law's only stated aim is transparency, and an automatic presumption that foreign funding equals influence is hard to sustain.
- Necessity: no risk assessment was produced, and existing Georgian law already requires registration and reporting of funding sources.
- Proportionality: the label stigmatises, the 20 percent threshold seems low and arbitrary, and fines are not proportionate to the breaches.
- Non-discrimination: the law targets civil society and media while leaving other entities, such as businesses, outside its scope.
What alternative does the Commission suggest?
The Commission strongly recommended repealing the law in its current form. It said that if existing provisions proved insufficient, the authorities should consider amending existing laws in line with European and international standards, and that genuine lobbying on behalf of foreign countries could be regulated.
Its earlier work points the same way. In a 2019 report on funding of associations, it wrote that negative labels such as "foreign agent" clearly pursue an objective of stigmatisation, and in 2017 it advised Hungary to limit published data to major sponsors.
