What Article 87¹ actually covers
Contained use of living genetically modified organisms — work carried out inside a closed system such as a laboratory, a greenhouse, a production installation or a research facility — is subject to a special regime under Georgian law. Article 87¹ of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia attaches liability to breaches of the rules governing activity in this field. It reaches two distinct situations: failure to observe the special requirements for handling living genetically modified organisms during contained use, and carrying out that contained use without the relevant licence.
In practice the article applies to research institutes, university laboratories, agricultural and biotechnology companies, and to the individuals who personally carry out or supervise the work. If a protocol has been drawn up against you or your organisation under Article 87¹, the first question is always which paragraph of the article is being applied. That is not a formality: the difference in sanction between the paragraphs is substantial, and so is the difference in what the authority has to prove.
The sanctions the law provides
Article 87¹ separates its fines by paragraph, and each paragraph carries its own figure:
- breach of the special requirements for handling living genetically modified organisms during contained use — a fine of 300 to 800 GEL (paragraph 1);
- the same conduct committed repeatedly — a fine of 800 to 2,000 GEL (paragraph 2);
- contained use of living genetically modified organisms without the relevant licence — a fine of 100 to 1,000 GEL, with or without confiscation of the object of the offence (paragraph 3);
- repeat commission of the conduct described in paragraph 3 — a fine of 1,000 to 2,000 GEL, with confiscation of the object of the offence (paragraph 4).
The wording on confiscation repays close reading. Under paragraph 3 confiscation is possible but not mandatory — the law says expressly "with or without confiscation of the object of the offence". Under paragraph 4, which deals with repeat commission, confiscation appears without that qualifier. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the article were repealed and are no longer in force, so no charge can rest on them.
The import and processing licence rule that takes effect in 2027
The Code already contains paragraph 3¹ of Article 87¹, which enters into force on 31 March 2027. It concerns breach of the conditions of a licence for the import and processing of a living genetically modified organism admitted to the territory of Georgia, and it provides for a fine of 15,000 GEL, with or without confiscation of the object of the offence.
The note to that paragraph states that other questions connected with this liability — including how the licensing authority sets a reasonable period for satisfying the licence conditions, how the relevant conditions are established, and how the licence is revoked — are governed by the Law of Georgia on Licences and Permits. If your company works under such a licence, or intends to apply for one, that date is a planning matter rather than a present exposure.
How a case unfolds in practice
An administrative offence case begins with a protocol drawn up by an authorised official following an inspection, and continues with examination of the case and the issuing of a decision. The fine stays inside the statutory range, but the specific amount within that range is a matter of assessment. That is precisely why it matters what facts were recorded in the protocol, how precisely they were described, and what evidence you put forward yourself.
One point deserves emphasis. Article 87¹ does not itself state which authority draws up the protocol, within what period a decision may be challenged, or what that decision has to contain. Those questions are governed by other provisions of the Code and by related legislation, so in your own case they must be established rather than assumed from the text of this article. Anyone who tells you the deadline without looking at your papers is guessing.
Where legal representation changes the outcome
A defence is normally built along three lines. The first is classification: whether the conduct described in the protocol genuinely falls under the paragraph that was applied — the gap between paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 is the gap between a handling breach and unlicensed activity, and the two are not interchangeable. The second is the factual basis: whether the inspection recorded what it says it recorded, and whether the material in the file supports it. The third is the measure itself, including the amount chosen within the range and, where paragraph 3 is applied, whether confiscation should be ordered at all, given that the law leaves it optional.
Bring the following to a first consultation:
- the protocol and any decision, with the date on which each was served on you;
- the licence, if you hold one, together with its conditions and period of validity;
- internal contained-use documentation: biosafety instructions, logs, and the acts appointing responsible staff;
- the inspection material — photographs, written explanations, sampling records;
- anything showing whether you have previously been penalised for the same conduct, if repetition is alleged against you.
None of these documents changes the result on its own, and no lawyer can promise you that a fine will be cancelled. What preparation does is make sure the case is decided under the paragraph that actually fits the facts, on a record you have read, and with your own account of events in the file before the decision is taken rather than after it.