Breach of the technical regulation on plastic materials intended for food contact (Art. 82⁶)

How much is the fine, and can it be reduced?

Article 82⁶ sets fixed amounts: 1,000 lari under part 1 and 2,000 lari for a repeat commission. There is no range in the article, so argument normally goes not to the amount but to the elements of the offence — whether what happened is in fact the breach this article describes.

What does "confiscation of the relevant products" mean in practice?

Under the text, confiscation of the relevant products accompanies the fine in both parts. The article does not define the scope of that confiscation, so in practice the dispute is about which batch or which units were treated as "the relevant products". That has to be established on documents such as batch identification and sampling records.

Could my situation fall within an exception?

The note to the article states directly that the exceptional cases defined by Article 2 of the same Government resolution are not treated as a breach. The exceptions are not reproduced in the Code, so checking the full text of Article 2 of the regulation against your facts is essential rather than optional.

How long after the first offence does an act still count as a repeat?

Article 82⁶ states no time limit for the repeat limb — the text does not bound it by any period. The questions worth putting are different ones: whether the earlier act is documented, and whether it concerned the same elements, meaning a breach of the same paragraphs of the regulation.

The article looks recent. Which version applies to my case?

The legislative note under the article records Law No 1195 of 10 December 2025, published on 15 December 2025, as the source of the current wording. The version relevant to your case is the one in force on the date of the act, which makes that date worth fixing precisely and checking against the report.

5 min·22 Aug 2026

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.

Updated: 14 Oct 2026

Related Services

Removing materials without quarantine inspection and treatment (Art. 99)Breach of the rules on non-cash disbursement of a secured loan (Art. 153¹⁰)Deliberate disclosure of the substance of a patent or design application (Art. 157⁴)Advertising infant formula products (Art. 159⁴)Breach of the certification rules (Art. 163)Operating a private employment agency without the mandatory notification (Art. 42³)Breach of the rules on expressing prices in lari (Art. 153⁷)Failure to submit notification of placing a new tobacco product on the market (Art. 155¹¹)Producing tobacco without a licence or in breach of the licence conditions (Art. 155¹²)Bank's breach of the rules on opening an account and executing a tax payment order (Art. 165)Insolvency manager's failure to publish the required report (Art. 165¹⁰)Falsification of a precious metal and stone test report by a testing laboratory (Art. 179¹)Breach of the rules on collecting, buying and selling scrap metal (Art. 179²)