Article 46¹ and its purpose
Article 46¹ of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia establishes administrative liability for breach of the rules, established by Georgian legislation, on the removal and use of a human organ, part of an organ or tissue. The norm governs one of the most sensitive fields of administrative regulation — transplantation and the medical use of human biological material. The removal and use of organs and tissues is a strictly regulated activity in which human dignity, health and safety depend directly on procedural detail; that is why a breach of the rules established in this field is treated as a separate composition and protected by a penalty.
What counts as a violation
Under the wording of the article, the administrative offence is a breach of the rules established by the legislation of Georgia on the removal and use of a human organ, part of an organ, or tissue. The norm thus protects the entire body of rules fixed by legislation: a breach may be committed at the stage of removal just as at the stage of use, and the article covers both situations alike. The specific rules — under what conditions, by which persons and within which procedures removal and use may take place — are determined by the legislation of the healthcare field.
It is important to emphasise that the article addresses precisely a breach of the rules — a departure from the procedures fixed by law, assessed as an administrative violation. When the case is examined, what is assessed is which specific requirement was breached and what factual circumstances accompanied it; this is determined by the content of the established rules and the evidence obtained in the case.
The amount of the fine
For this violation, Article 46¹ prescribes a fine of fifty times the amount of labour remuneration — that is, expressed as fifty minimum amounts of labour remuneration — while for officials the fine is set at one hundred times the amount of labour remuneration, that is, one hundred minimum amounts. These are two separately established tiers: one for an ordinary person and one for an official, and they must not be blended into a single range — each amount must be perceived separately.
The fine is expressed in minimum amounts of labour remuneration, and converting it into lari on this page would be improper: the monetary value of a minimum amount changes over time according to the procedure established by legislation, so the correct formulation remains the one in minimum amounts. Which period's minimum amount applies in a concrete case is resolved under the rules on the imposition of penalties.
Who is liable
The article shows two circles of subjects: the general circle of persons, for whom a fine of fifty minimum amounts is prescribed, and officials, who pay one hundred minimum amounts. The differentiated, stricter liability of an official is justified by the fact that it is precisely the official who may bear the duty of ensuring compliance with the relevant rules. The existence of guilt is assessed separately in each case under the general rules of the Code.
Procedural questions
The authority empowered to draw up the protocol, the time limits for examining the case, the procedure for adopting the decision and the appeal procedure are not regulated directly by this article — these matters are determined by other provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences. In such cases documentary evidence — medical documentation, permits, minutes — plays a decisive role both in establishing the fact of the breach and in substantiating compliance with the rules.
Practical recommendations
For medical institutions and persons engaged in professional activity, it is advisable to document clearly every procedure of removal and use: on the basis of which rule, under which permit and through which stages the operation takes place. This does not remove liability, but it provides the means to defend a position when the case is examined. In doubtful situations a preliminary legal assessment prevents the very errors that this article punishes.
To summarise: Article 46¹ punishes the breach of the rules established by legislation on the removal and use of a human organ, part of an organ or tissue; the fine is set at fifty minimum amounts of labour remuneration, and for officials at one hundred minimum amounts. The detailed content of the rules and the procedural order are determined by the relevant legislation and other provisions of the Code.
The existence of an administrative penalty in this field is also a matter of public trust: the transplantation system fulfils its function only when donors, patients and their families are confident that trade in human organs and tissues and manipulation outside the rules are impossible. Article 46¹ is one of the guarding boundaries of that trust: it fixes that every operation of removal and use must proceed by the rule, and that a breach of this rule does not remain unanswered.
The internal organisation of a medical institution also matters: clear instructions, a definition of the responsible staff and a stage-by-stage record of every procedure create the environment in which committing a breach becomes difficult and compliance becomes substantiated. In practice it is precisely those institutions in which every step is documented that are protected against unfounded allegations of unlawfulness.