What this offence covers
Ferrous and non-ferrous metals, articles containing them, and the scrap and waste of those metals are not freely circulating goods in Georgia. Collecting, buying, transporting, selling and handing them over is governed by an established set of rules, and Article 179² of the Code of Administrative Offences penalises breaching those rules. The article draws no line between a large commercial operation and a small one. What matters is whether the established rules were broken at one of the listed stages: collection, purchase, transport, sale, or handing over.
In practice the provision reaches a wide group: a scrap collection point and the person working in it, a driver moving a load, and a private individual who gathered or handed in metal items. If you take part in any operation involving scrap metal, this article applies to you as well — including in situations you regard as nothing more than a slip in the paperwork.
What "the established rules" means here
Article 179² imposes liability for breaching the established rules but does not itself list them. That has two consequences. The first is that deciding whether anything was breached always requires identifying the specific requirement that applied at the particular stage; a general reference to "a breach of the rules" does not complete the case. The second is that, for the defence, it matters that the file states precisely which requirement was treated as breached and at which stage.
The article names five stages — collection, purchase, transport, sale and handing over. They are alternatives rather than a sequence that has to be completed in full: it is enough for liability that the established rules were broken at one of them. That is why the provision catches the person who buys scrap just as readily as the person who only moves it from one place to another.
What Article 179² actually provides
The first part of the article deals with breaching the established rules on collecting, buying, transporting, selling or handing over ferrous and non-ferrous metals, articles containing them, and their scrap and waste. The sanction has two components: a fine and confiscation.
- Part one — a fine of 1,000 to 3,000 lari, with confiscation of the metals, the articles containing them, and their scrap and waste;
- Part two — a fine of 3,000 to 5,000 lari, with the same confiscation.
Whatever is imposed sits inside one of those two brackets. The article does not say which circumstances call for the lower end and which for the upper; that turns on the facts of the case rather than on any rule written into it.
Confiscation is part of the penalty, not an optional extra
In both parts of the article, confiscation accompanies the fine. It is written into the sanction itself rather than left as a measure the deciding body may or may not add. For many people this is the heavier half of the outcome, because what is confiscated is the metal, the articles containing it, and the scrap and waste — the very goods the operation concerned.
That is why cases of this kind are rarely resolved by arguing about the size of the fine. The decisive questions are usually whether a breach is proven at all, and whether the metal or scrap seized really was the subject of the operation described in the file.
Repetition within one year
The second part of the article raises the bracket on one condition only: the same act is committed by a person who, within one year, has already had an administrative penalty imposed on them for one of the violations set out in the first part. Where that condition is met the fine runs from 3,000 to 5,000 lari, again with confiscation.
The practical consequence is that an earlier case feeds directly into a later one. If the first penalty was arguable and was left unchallenged, it can push a second case into the higher bracket. Two things therefore deserve separate checking: how the one-year period is counted, and whether the earlier penalty really was imposed under the first part of this article rather than some other provision.
What you can do, and where a lawyer changes things
If proceedings under Article 179² have been opened against you, the first useful step is assembling documents, because the documents decide whether a breach of the established rules is made out. A lawyer's contribution here is not a promised result. It is reading the file against the article, identifying which part is being applied, and making sure every disputed element is recorded in time rather than raised once the case has been decided.
- the protocol and the rest of the case file — what act is described, and which part of the article it is placed under;
- documents showing where the metal or scrap came from;
- transport and hand-over documentation, if the operation was stopped at that stage;
- whether any administrative penalty under this article was imposed on you during the preceding year.
What Article 179² provides is the offence, the two brackets of fine and the confiscation that accompanies each. It names no body to hear the case and sets no appeal deadline; both are governed by other provisions of the Code, and the document you were handed states the procedure that applies in your case. On Legal.ge you can find a lawyer who will carry out that check and build a position from what the file shows.