What Article 87³ covers
Article 87³ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences deals with a breach of the labelling rules for living genetically modified organisms. Both the heading and the text of the article speak of living genetically modified organisms, and that terminological detail is not cosmetic: the classification of the case hangs on it. If the decision you have received refers loosely to "GM products", it is worth checking whether the conduct really falls inside this article at all.
The article does not set out what the label must say, in what form, or at which stage. It points to the labelling rules, which are laid down in separate legislation. So the first thing to establish in any case is which specific requirement is said to have been breached and where that requirement comes from. The article's current wording was shaped by the Georgian laws of 18 September 2014 and 20 April 2018.
Who it can apply to
The text does not name the responsible person separately. It describes conduct, not a trade or a job title. In practice the question arises in relation to whoever the labelling obligation actually rested on at the relevant stage:
- the person who applied the label or was responsible for labelling;
- the person who had the consignment in their control at the time of the check;
- the person who passed the goods on unlabelled or wrongly labelled;
- the person formally tasked in writing with meeting the requirement.
This is an orientation rather than a statutory classification. Article 87³ contains no such breakdown, and attribution always turns on the facts of the case and on what the file records.
The sanction the article sets
The article has two parts. Under part 1, breaching the labelling rules for living genetically modified organisms entails a fine of 750 lari. Under part 2, the same conduct committed repeatedly entails a fine of 2,000 lari.
Both figures are fixed. The article does not express the penalty as a range; it names an exact amount. For instance, if a first breach is fined at 750 lari and liability is then established under part 2 for the same conduct, the amount is 2,000 lari — 1,250 lari more. That gap is what makes the choice between part 1 and part 2 the most consequential point in the whole case.
What "repeatedly" means here
Article 87³ does not define within what period, or on what conditions, a second act counts as repeated. The text leaves the question open, so the answer comes from the general rules of the Code and the circumstances of the case rather than from this article.
The practical stake is direct: applying part 2 raises the figure from 750 lari to 2,000 lari. If your decision states 2,000 lari, check which earlier case the finding of repetition rests on, whether that earlier case exists in documentary form, and whether it concerns conduct under this same article rather than something adjacent.
How a case unfolds in practice
An administrative-offence case normally begins with a protocol and ends with a decision. The wording of those two documents defines what you have to answer, which is why reading them closely is the first step rather than a formality.
Check whether the article is cited with the exact part; whether a specific consignment, time and place are recorded; whether the labelling requirement said to have been breached is actually named; and whether the amount matches the part relied on — 750 lari for part 1, 2,000 lari for part 2. Article 87³ sets no deadline for challenging the decision and names no body to address; those questions are governed by other provisions of the Code, so both have to be checked against the document issued in your case rather than assumed from a general rule.
The most valuable thing you can do at the moment of a check is to record the facts: photograph the label exactly as it stands, keep the consignment paperwork, note the precise date and time of the check, and write down who was present and which consignment was inspected. That material cannot be recreated afterwards, and it is often what the dispute later rests on — particularly where the question is whether there was no label at all or whether its content is what is contested.
What you can do, and where a lawyer changes things
A lawyer cannot promise an outcome. What a lawyer can do is run the part of the case that is within your side's reach: check the classification and the part relied on, work out who the labelling obligation was on, file the challenge inside the deadline, and put evidence in while it can still be taken into account. Because the article is a blanket provision, the dispute frequently turns on whether the breached requirement has been identified with any precision.
Before a consultation, gather copies of the protocol and the decision; proof of the date of service; the consignment paperwork and a sample or photograph of the label; correspondence with the supplier and counterparties; internal instructions and the document assigning responsibility; and, if the decision relies on repetition, the file from the earlier case.