The Enforcing Organ and Mandatory Mandating to an Independent Organ
Unless legislation provides otherwise, an individual administrative-legal act is enforced by the administrative organ that issued it. By assignment of the issuing organ, the enforcement may also be carried out by a subordinate or another administrative organ, in which case the provisions of the Code governing mutual assistance between administrative organs apply. Unless otherwise provided by law or by a subordinate act issued on its basis, the organ may delegate the power of enforcement either as a one-time measure or for a fixed term. The right to enforce belongs only to the official on whom the duty of enforcement is imposed by service.
A person carrying out enforcement must carry an identity card confirming the relevant authority and present it at the request of the persons against whom the enforcement is being carried out. This requirement is an important guarantee of the transparency of enforcement: a citizen must be able to understand who, and by what authority, is carrying out an enforcement action against them.
In certain cases the act must be issued through an independent organ — under the rule of mandatory mandating. In particular, a decision on the privatisation of state (municipal) property (an enterprise) is issued through an independent organ if the price exceeds 100 000 GEL. An independent organ may consist of one or more natural or legal persons who possess the relevant qualification and are able to ensure the impartial resolution of the matter. The President of Georgia and the Prime Minister of Georgia are entitled to appoint an independent organ to decide an administrative complaint.
The Procedure of Enforcement and the Duty to Comply with Demands
The organ (official) responsible for enforcement must exercise the power conferred on it by law only within the limits necessary to secure the enforcement of the individual administrative-legal act — this is a requirement of proportionality which does not allow enforcement to turn into an excessively broad intervention. Moreover, the powers of the organ (official) responsible for enforcement may be restricted by an individual administrative-legal act of a superior administrative organ (official).
Every person is obliged to comply with the lawful demand of the competent organ (official) connected with enforcement. However, unless otherwise provided by law or by a subordinate act issued on its basis, a person is entitled to refuse to comply with a demand if it contradicts an obligation imposed on that person by law, or if it would entail the disclosure of personal data or of a state, commercial or professional secret whose protection is imposed on the person by law. Such a refusal is lawful, and its invocation must not become a ground for holding the person responsible.
The Decision on Securing Enforcement
For the purpose of enforcing an individual administrative-legal act, an administrative organ (official) may carry out against another person any action provided for by law only if a decision on securing enforcement has been issued. This means that a securing measure cannot be applied of its own accord, without the corresponding decision — first the decision, then the action.
Where an application concerning the securing of enforcement is submitted, the organ resolves the matter within 10 days. The decision is made in writing and constitutes an individual administrative-legal act. It may contain the individual administrative-legal act that is to be enforced, and it must indicate the act for the enforcement of which it has been issued. The decision must indicate the amount of the costs and the procedure for their reimbursement, and the organ is entitled subsequently to change the amount of the costs in accordance with the actions carried out for enforcement. Where the use of one means of securing is impossible, an act must be issued on the use of another means of securing enforcement.
The administrative proceedings connected with the issuance of a decision on securing enforcement are not subject to those requirements of the Code which concern the participation of the interested party and the right to submit one's own view — a simplified procedure applies to securing decisions, serving the effectiveness of enforcement.
The Voluntary-Compliance Deadline and the Costs of Enforcement
A person against whom a means of securing enforcement is applied must be given a period for the voluntary performance of the individual administrative-legal act. The organ is obliged to determine precisely what actions the person must carry out for the enforcement of the act, and the person is entitled to perform the corresponding obligation by the means most favourable to that person. This rule gives the person a choice of the form of performance, within the limits that do not contradict the attainment of the result fixed by the act.
Unless otherwise provided by law or by an individual administrative-legal act issued on its basis, the costs connected with enforcement are borne by the person who is obliged to perform the enforcement of the act. If, in the case provided for by law, no period was determined for the person for voluntary performance, the costs connected with enforcement are borne correspondingly by the state or the relevant municipality, except where the urgent necessity was caused by the action of the person who was to perform the act. The burden of costs is thus distributed according to by whom, or because of whom, the need for enforcement arose.
Means of Securing Enforcement — the Fine and Direct Coercion
The full list of means of securing enforcement is determined by other norms of the Code; attention here is given to the two most widespread among them — the fine and direct coercion. A fine, as a civil-law means of enforcement, is applied where the enforcement of an individual administrative-legal act is possible only through an expression of will by the person concerned. It may also be applied where the possibility exists of assigning another action connected with the enforcement of the act.
The amount of the fine must be determined by the decision on securing enforcement and may be fixed as a total sum, or as a sum for each day of violation of the act, or for each action committed in violation of the act. The law sets strict caps: the total amount of the fine must not exceed 1000 GEL for a natural person and 5000 GEL for a legal person; a fine fixed for each day of violation or for each action committed in violation must not exceed 50 GEL for a natural person and 200 GEL for a legal person. The minimum amount of a fine is 5 GEL, and it is credited correspondingly to the budget of the state or of the territorial unit.
If, despite the application of the means of securing enforcement provided for by the Code, the act has still not been enforced, the person responsible for enforcement is entitled to secure the enforcement of the individual administrative-legal act by means of direct coercion. Direct coercion is thus an ultimate measure: it is applied only after the other means have failed to produce a result.
Municipalities, Monetary Collection and Appeal
These general rules of enforcement do not extend to the organs of a municipality — the provisions of the relevant chapter of the Code do not operate with respect to municipal organs, which reflects the specificity of municipal self-government.
A special procedure applies to acts connected with the collection of monetary sums: the means of securing enforcement provided for in general are not applied to them, yet a decision of the corresponding administrative organ on securing enforcement is required. If a person obliged on the basis of the act refuses to pay the monetary sum, the organ is entitled to adopt a decision under which an authorised person imposes on the debtor the obligation to transfer the sum payable into the account of the organ. The forced withdrawal of a sum from a person and the seizure of property proceed on the basis of an enforcement sheet, in the manner established by the Georgian law on enforcement proceedings — at that stage the matter passes to the enforcement system.
A decision on securing enforcement is appealed in the manner established by the Code. If the means of securing selected by the decision and the enforcement deadline flow directly from the act for the enforcement of which the decision was issued, it may be appealed only together with the corresponding individual administrative-legal act. The logic is clear: where the measure and the deadline derive directly from the act, appealing them separately makes little sense, and the complaint must concern the act itself.