A Brief Overview of the Main Amendments to the Law on Labor Migration
3 minute read | Last Updated 15th September 2025
Written by: Yoelena Tkebuchava
Summary
Explore More Articles
Share this Article
Introduction
This article presents a detailed overview of the latest amendments to the “Law on Labor Migration” initiated by the Government of Georgia and introduced to the Parliament of Georgia in June 2025 (Draft Law No. 07-3/69/11, available at parliament.ge). These legislative changes, which are scheduled to gradually enter into force starting in 2026, significantly expand the scope of immigration regulation in Georgia.
The amendments redefine the legal framework for the employment and self-employment of foreign nationals, introduce the new concept of a “self-employed foreigner”, set clearer procedural requirements for obtaining work authorization and residence permits, and establish stricter compliance obligations for both companies and individuals. Additionally, the reform enhances the supervisory powers of the Labor Inspectorate and imposes substantial administrative sanctions for violations.
This overview is intended to provide businesses and investors with a clear understanding of the upcoming changes, their legal implications, and the potential compliance risks that may arise in practice. Our aim is to ensure that companies operating in Georgia, as well as foreign nationals engaged in entrepreneurial or labor activities, are fully informed and prepared to adjust their practices in line with the new legal requirements.
Expansion of the Scope of the Law
The recent amendments to the Law on Labor Migration significantly expand its scope, as it now applies to self-employed persons as well. The amendments introduce the concept of a “self-employed foreigner,” defined as:
A foreigner who does not hold a permanent residence permit in Georgia and who carries out labor activity in Georgia, including engaging in trade, services, or other types of activities, acting as a partner, independent contractor, or otherwise involved in entrepreneurial/labor activities, where the objective of such activity is to obtain financial benefit (Article 3.g2).
This definition is overly broad and vague. For example, the meaning of “partner” is unclear – whether it refers to a shareholder, business partner, or otherwise. Similarly, the phrase “otherwise involved in entrepreneurial/labor activities” could potentially include directors, supervisory board members, and shareholders of companies registered in Georgia. Therefore, this definition requires further clarification.
Contradictions in the Scope Clause
According to Article 1(2), the law extends to the employment in Georgia of foreigners without permanent residence permits and their engagement in labor activities, including for financial gain. This provision conflicts with the classical definition of “labor relations” under the Labor Code and contradicts the expanded scope of the amended law, which already includes entrepreneurial and self-employment activities. As a result, Article 1(2) creates ambiguity and opens the possibility of inconsistent interpretation.
Problematic Definition of the Right to Work
The new definition of the right to work also raises concerns. It covers independent entrepreneurial activities as well as remote work performed from abroad for the benefit of a Georgian employer. The same applies to the definition of a labor migrant. It is unclear and unjustified why remote work or independent entrepreneurial activity should fall within the scope of national migration legislation.
Requirement of Work Authorization and Visa/Permit
Under the amendments, labor migrants may only be employed by a Georgian employer, and self-employed foreigners may only engage in entrepreneurial activity if they hold a work authorization and either a D1 category visa or a residence permit (Article 133).
Furthermore, the law stipulates that the right to work is terminated if a self-employed foreigner remains outside Georgia for more than six months (Article 137.1.b).
This creates practical challenges. For example, a self-employed foreigner who visits Georgia only a few times per year would be required to obtain work authorization and a D1 visa or residence permit, yet would lose that right if absent for six months, forcing reapplication upon each visit. This issue particularly affects foreign directors, supervisory board members, and shareholders, many of whom operate from abroad and only occasionally visit Georgia.
The law should clearly specify that:
(1) Directors, supervisory board members, and shareholders do not fall under the definition of “self-employed foreigner.”
(2) Self-employed foreigners working remotely and visiting Georgia only occasionally are not required to obtain work authorization and a visa/residence permit.
(3) The law should define the frequency and duration of visits that trigger the requirement to obtain such immigration documents.
Obligation to Apply for Visa/Permit within a Deadline
Under Article 135.1, after obtaining work authorization:
(a) If the labor migrant is outside Georgia, they must apply within 30 calendar days for a D1 immigration visa.
(b) If already in Georgia, they must apply within 10 calendar days for either a work residence permit or an IT residence permit.
This provision obliges foreigners from visa-free countries, who may legally enter Georgia without a visa, to nevertheless apply for a D1 visa – an inconsistency the law does not address.
Appeals Against Refusal of Work Authorization
Article 135(9) provides that a refusal to grant work authorization may be appealed. However, filing an appeal does not give the applicant the right to work, suspend their obligation to leave Georgia, or prevent deportation proceedings. In practice, this means that a refusal by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Social Protection cannot be meaningfully reviewed by the courts, as the applicant risks deportation before judicial consideration. Thus, the appeal mechanism is effectively deprived of practical value.
Powers of the Labor Inspectorate
The amendments expand the mandate of the Labor Inspectorate, granting it authority to oversee compliance and impose sanctions. Violations include working without authorization (by labor migrants or self-employed foreigners), obstructing the Inspectorate’s activities, or failing to present identification documents.
This broad mandate is unprecedented, extending beyond classical labor relations to cover trade, services, independent contractors, and potentially foreign directors, supervisory board members, and shareholders. Such expansion is inconsistent with internationally recognized labor inspection standards.
Risk of Fines for Service Organizers
Particularly problematic is the liability of “service organizers.” Article 161 states that if a labor migrant works without authorization under an agreement with a service organizer, the organizer may be fined GEL 2,000 per foreigner.
A “service organizer” is defined as any person (natural or legal) who enters into an agreement with a self-employed foreigner under which the latter receives financial benefit. This broad definition means that even simple contractual relations with foreigners could expose Georgian citizens or companies to fines, even if they were unaware of the foreigner’s immigration status. Such provisions could negatively impact civil turnover and the business environment in Georgia.
Expanded Inspection Powers
Under Article 14(2), the enforcement procedures of the Labor Inspectorate follow the Law on
Labor Inspection. This law obliges any person or company to provide documents or information, including those containing professional secrecy or personal data, and authorizes inspectors to enter workplaces or business premises without prior notice, seize documents, and conduct inspections at any time.
Given the expanded scope of the Law on Labor Migration, these powers now apply not only to employment relations but also to trade, services, independent contractors, and contractual relations involving foreign directors, supervisory board members, and shareholders. This creates an unprecedented extension of the Inspectorate’s authority into areas not directly related to labor relations.
