Article 36 of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia regulates how an administrative penalty is imposed when one and the same person commits several administrative offences. This question arises often in practice: a single act sometimes simultaneously contravenes several norms, and sometimes a person commits several different breaches within a short period. For this reason the legislature established clear rules on how penalties are combined or separated in such situations. On this page we describe all three parts of Article 36 in detail and explain what they mean in practice, both for the offender and for the body imposing the penalty.
The general rule — a separate penalty for each offence
Under the first part of the article, where a person commits several — two or more — administrative offences, an administrative penalty is imposed separately for the commission of each offence. This provision is the general starting point: every breach is assessed individually, and the sanction of each norm is applied to it. Such an approach is logical, because different norms protect different interests, and their breach is connected with different harmful consequences. At the same time, this general rule is supplemented in the following part by an important qualification that operates where several cases are heard simultaneously.
Simultaneous hearing by one body — within the sanction for the graver offence
The second part of the article establishes an exception: where a person has committed several administrative offences whose cases are heard simultaneously by one and the same body (official), the administrative penalty is imposed within the framework of the sanction established for the commission of the graver administrative offence. Moreover, one supplementary administrative penalty may be added to the main administrative penalty, chosen from among the penalties provided for by the article determining liability for any of the offences committed. In practical terms this means that in such a case the penalties are not simply stacked on top of each other: the body considers all the breaches, compares them by gravity, and determines the final penalty within the sanction of the gravest one, with the possibility of adding one supplementary penalty. This prevents disproportionate punishment for what may have been a single course of conduct.
The maximum term for the restriction of weapons-related rights
The third part of the article addresses a special case: where a person has committed several administrative offences whose cases are heard simultaneously by one and the same body (official) and which provide, as an administrative penalty, the restriction of weapons-related rights, the total term of the restriction of weapons-related rights must not exceed 5 years. This norm protects a person from a situation in which restrictions imposed for several breaches, accumulated one after another, would produce a disproportionately long term. Setting such a ceiling balances the principle of accountability against the stability of a person's legal status, and it is a mandatory limit for the body imposing the penalty.
The practical significance of these rules
Knowledge of the rules of Article 36 matters to both sides of the proceedings:
- for the offender — to understand why a single act may attract several penalties, or, on the contrary, why the penalty must remain within the sanction for the gravest breach;
- for the body imposing the penalty — for the correct qualification of the case, so that the combination or separation of breaches takes place in accordance with the law;
- for an advocate — for building an argument in a complaint that the penalty was imposed in breach of the second part of the article, for example where sanctions were unlawfully accumulated;
- for a weapons owner — to assess whether the total term of the restriction exceeds the five-year ceiling established by law.
How these rules operate in practice
In practice the application of Article 36 begins with establishing how many independent offences have been committed and who hears the cases. If the cases go to different bodies, or are heard at different times, the general rule applies and a separate penalty is imposed for each breach. If all the cases are simultaneously before one and the same body (official), the penalty must be imposed within the sanction for the gravest offence. Three points then deserve attention: first, the comparative gravity of the breaches, since it determines the sanction within which the penalty falls; second, the source of the supplementary penalty, which may derive from the article of any of the offences but only one may be added; and third, the cumulative term of any weapons-related restrictions, which must not exceed the five-year ceiling. Checking these three points shows whether the penalty was imposed lawfully.
Conclusion
Article 36 creates a two-step system: as a general rule, a person who commits several offences receives a separate penalty for each, while where the cases are heard simultaneously by one and the same body, the penalty is imposed within the sanction for the gravest offence and one supplementary penalty may be added; where the restriction of weapons-related rights is at issue, its total term must not exceed 5 years. If you need to assess whether these rules have been correctly applied in your case, the specialists at Legal.ge will help you analyse the case file and prepare a complaint.