GEORGIAN NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DELIBERATELY SPREADS FALSE INFORMATION

On June 30, Georgian National Communications Commission released a statement saying that part of the media and non-governmental organizations, including the Young Lawyers' Association, opposes putting the Law on Financial Transparency of broadcasters into effect enacted by the Parliament on July 12, 2013, and seek to establish double standards in the country.

The statement of the Commission that GYLA opposes the Law on Law on Financial Transparency of Broadcasters is not true and misleads the society.

We would like to remind the society that GYLA was one of the initiators of the law enacted on July 12, 2013, which was prepared by several non-governmental organizations (see the explanatory note to the draft law). The law was passed with the active participation of the non-governmental sector, including GYLA, and the Commission's assertion that we oppose the enforcement of the law co-authored by us is illogical.

We would like to clarify that the legal dispute mentioned in the statement did not concern the regulation of the law, but violations of the requirements of the same law by the Commission. In particular, on September 23, 2013, after the enactment of the law, the Commission approved the forms of accounts, requiring that the broadcasters provide more information than it was envisaged by the law.

The broadcasters believed that the disclosure of the information requested by the commission exceeded the requirements of the law and would harm them as private companies. Several broadcasters filed an appeal against the decision of the commission to the Tbilisi City Court and the ruling of the court partially suspended the decision of the commission. It is important for the public to be aware that the Commission soon had to change its decision and, approved the new forms after consulting with the non-governmental sector and the media.

GYLA, in the process, provided legal assistance to several broadcasters and was not a party. It is noteworthy that GYLA was not the addressee of the regulation of the law, therefore GYLA could not prevent putting the law into effect.

In view of all the above, we believe that the Commission is aware of these facts. So we think this statement serves to discredit GYLA. Here we call on the commission to correct the false and misleading information.