What Article 57⁵ regulates
Mercury is a heavy metal, and its circulation in Georgia is regulated separately from ordinary chemicals. Article 57⁵ of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia gathers four independent offences into a single provision: the primary mining of mercury, the use of mercury in gold mining and processing, cross-border operations with mercury-added products carried out without prior informed consent, and breaches of the rules on producing and handling such products. Each part carries its own sanction, and in practice that difference decides the case — two episodes of the same industrial process can attract entirely different penalties depending on which part the conduct falls under.
The four offences and the amounts
- primary mining of mercury — a fine of 2,000 to 4,000 GEL with confiscation of the object of the offence (part 1);
- use of mercury or a mercury compound in gold mining and/or processing — a fine of 3,000 to 5,000 GEL (part 2);
- import, export or transit of a mercury-added product carried out without prior informed consent having been given — a fine of 3,000 GEL with confiscation of the object of the offence (part 3);
- breach of the rules on producing a mercury-added product, on using mercury or a mercury compound in a production process, and on handling and selling mercury and mercury compounds — a fine of 2,000 GEL with confiscation of the object of the offence (part 4).
Two of the parts — the first and the second — set the fine as a range, which means the specific amount is fixed separately within those limits; the article names no criterion for that choice. Parts 3 and 4 fix the amount, so no discretion remains and the argument narrows to whether the elements of the offence exist at all. It is also worth noting that part 2 is the only one of the four in which confiscation is not listed as a sanction.
Confiscation survives even a verbal warning
The article carries a note that is easily overlooked and frequently decisive. Confiscation of the object of the offence takes place under the procedure laid down in Article 22 of the Code notwithstanding the release of the offender from administrative liability and the application of a verbal warning to them. In other words, being released from liability does not automatically return the goods: the mercury or the mercury-added product is still subject to confiscation. A defence strategy built only around removing the fine therefore leaves the property side of the case open, and that side is often the larger loss.
Who this article reaches in practice
The provision is addressed to mining and gold-processing enterprises, to manufacturers and importers of chemical and measuring instruments, to distributors of medical and laboratory equipment, and to any company selling products that contain mercury. Part 3 singles out cross-border operations, where the decisive fact is not the movement of goods itself but the presence or absence of prior informed consent. Part 4 is the broadest of the four: it covers production, use in a production process, handling and sale alike — that is, ordinary day-to-day operating practice rather than any single exceptional event.
That breadth is why record-keeping ties directly into liability here. Composition certificates, safety data sheets, internal handling instructions and supply-chain paperwork are the material an inspection uses to establish whether the handling and sale rules were observed. Their absence does not by itself create a separate offence, but in practice it is the missing document that makes the contrary difficult to prove.
Lines of defence, and where a lawyer changes the outcome
The first line is classification: which part the conduct actually falls under. The difference between a 2,000 GEL fine and a 5,000 GEL one is decided at exactly this point, so the part cited in the protocol is the first thing to test. The second line is identification of the object — whether it has been established that the substance really is mercury or a mercury compound, or that the product really is mercury-added. That is a laboratory question and it has to be supported by documents in the file, not by an inspector's impression.
The third line is the scope of confiscation: what exactly was treated as the object of the offence, and whether that extends to equipment and packaging. A lawyer works across all three — examining the reasoning of the protocol and the decision, the sampling and expert-examination procedure, and, in the parts that set a range, arguing the individualisation of the fine.
What to gather before the first consultation
- copies of the protocol and the decision, together with any seizure or removal records;
- safety data sheets and certificates of chemical composition for the products concerned;
- prior informed consent documentation, where any was issued;
- customs declarations, invoices and carrier documents;
- the sampling record and the laboratory report;
- a description of the production process and internal instructions on handling mercury.