What Article 82⁶ covers
Article 82⁶ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences deals with breaches of the requirements of the technical regulation "On plastic materials and articles (objects) intended for contact with food", approved by a resolution of the Government of Georgia. The article does not cover that regulation as a whole. It points precisely at Article 2, paragraph 6 and/or paragraph 7 of the regulation, which means liability attaches to a breach of the requirements set out in those two paragraphs, not to any provision of the regulation at large.
In practice this is the single most important detail on the page. The Code does not reproduce the content of those paragraphs — the requirements themselves live in the regulation. So the first thing to check is which paragraph the report or decision served on you actually cites, and whether the factual situation described corresponds to that paragraph. If the document does not specify whether paragraph 6 or paragraph 7 is meant, that omission is itself something to examine, because the whole scope of the charge depends on it.
The sanction: a fixed fine plus confiscation
Article 82⁶ has two parts and, unlike many articles of the Code, it sets no range. The amounts are fixed.
- Part 1 — breach of the requirements of Article 2, paragraph 6 and/or paragraph 7 of the technical regulation: a fine of 1,000 lari, with confiscation of the relevant products.
- Part 2 — repeat commission of the act covered by part 1: a fine of 2,000 lari, with confiscation of the relevant products.
In both parts the confiscation accompanies the fine: the text presents it as part of the sanction rather than as a separate, freestanding measure. That is why the real economic consequence of such a case is frequently larger than the fine itself. What matters is which goods were treated as "the relevant products" and in what quantity, and that question is settled documentarily, at the level of batch identification, rather than by argument in the abstract.
The exceptions the article itself recognises
The article carries a note that narrows its own scope directly: for the purposes of Article 82⁶, the exceptional cases defined by Article 2 of the same Government resolution are not treated as a breach. If your situation falls within one of those exceptions in the regulation, there is no basis for liability under this article.
The Code does not list those exceptions; they sit in the resolution. One of the first steps in building a defence is therefore to compare the full text of Article 2 of the regulation against the facts of your case — not only paragraphs 6 and 7, which define the requirement, but also the exceptions to which the note refers, which can remove the case from the article altogether.
"Repeatedly" — what the text says and what it does not
Part 2 applies to repeat commission of the act covered by part 1 and provides for 2,000 lari together with confiscation. It is worth noticing what the article does not contain: it states no time window for the repeat limb at all, and does not bound it by any period. So where part 2 has been applied to you, the questions to put are evidential rather than chronological — what document establishes the earlier act, and whether that earlier act concerned the very same elements, meaning a breach of the same paragraphs of the regulation.
The current wording of the article rests on Law No 1195 of 10 December 2025, published on 15 December 2025. A wording that recent is itself a reason to argue an individual case from the text of the article and of the regulation first; which version applies turns on the date of the act, so that date is worth fixing precisely.
Where a lawyer changes the outcome
A defence in this category of case is rarely built on the size of the fine, because the amount is fixed and the article provides no mechanism for reducing it. The work goes instead to the elements of the offence: whether the conduct really engages paragraph 6 or paragraph 7; whether the products have been correctly identified; whether one of the exceptions covered by the note applies; and whether the act has properly been classified as a repeat. The scope of the confiscation is a separate question again, because it bears directly on a specific batch held in storage or already in distribution, and the volume at stake there is often what actually decides the commercial impact.
Article 82⁶ sets no appeal deadline of its own; the time limit and the procedure follow from other provisions of the Code and from the procedure recited in the document you were served, so that part of it is worth reading as soon as it arrives. What the article does settle is that confiscation runs with the fine in both parts, which is why the products caught by it are being dealt with alongside the money.
What to prepare
Assemble the report or decision in full text, the technical documentation for the products, supplier declarations and conformity documents, batch identification data, the inspection and sampling materials, and any laboratory test results that exist. Prepare, too, an account of where the products caught by the confiscation are held and in what quantity. The earlier this material is gathered, the more time remains to form a position — and in a case that combines a fixed fine with confiscation, time is the resource that tends to run out first.