What Article 87² covers
Article 87² of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences deals with a breach of the safety conditions for transporting living genetically modified organisms. Two elements sit inside it: the goods must be living genetically modified organisms, and what is said to have been breached must be a safety condition of their transport. Both elements have to be visible in the file; where one of them is not, the classification itself becomes arguable.
The article does not set out which conditions had to be observed during carriage. It points to the transport safety conditions, which are laid down in separate legislation. So the first thing to establish in a case is which particular condition is said to have been breached. Note too that the article has two parts, each carrying its own fixed figure, so the part cited in your decision deserves attention in its own right. The article's current wording was shaped by the Georgian laws of 18 September 2014 and 20 April 2018.
Where these cases come from
Carriage is a chain: one party prepares the load, another moves it, a third holds it somewhere along the route. The text of the article does not define the responsible person — it describes conduct, not a role in that chain. In practice, then, the central question is who the breach is charged to and on what basis. By way of orientation, it usually arises in relation to:
- the party that prepared and packed the load for carriage;
- the party that physically carried out the transport;
- the party holding the goods at the moment of the check;
- the person formally tasked in writing with observing the condition.
That list is an orientation and not a statutory classification. Article 87² contains no such breakdown, and attribution always turns on the facts of the individual case.
The sanction the article sets
The article has two parts. Under part 1, breaching the safety conditions for transporting living genetically modified organisms entails a fine of 350 lari. Under part 2, the same conduct committed repeatedly entails a fine of 1,000 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 350 lari and liability is then established under part 2 for the same conduct, the amount is 1,000 lari — 650 lari more. That difference is what makes the question of which part applies the single most consequential issue in the case.
What "repeatedly" means here
Article 87² does not define within what period, or on what conditions, a second act counts as repeated. The text leaves the point open, so the answer is drawn from the general rules of the Code and from the circumstances, not from this article.
The practical stake is direct: applying part 2 raises the figure from 350 lari to 1,000 lari. If your decision states 1,000 lari, check which earlier case the finding of repetition rests on, whether that case exists in documentary form, and whether it concerns conduct under this same article rather than a neighbouring one.
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 sets out what you have to answer and fixes the boundaries of the dispute, which is why they repay careful reading on the day they arrive.
Check whether the article is cited with the exact part; whether a specific movement, route, time and place are recorded; whether the safety condition said to have been breached is actually named; and whether the amount matches the part relied on — 350 lari for part 1, 1,000 lari for part 2. Article 87² 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.
Evidence disappears unusually fast in transport cases: the load moves on, packaging is opened, the vehicle goes out on another run. If you are present at a check, record the factual position immediately — photographs of the packaging and the vehicle, the exact date and time, the identities of the people present, and copies of the accompanying paperwork. None of that material can be created after the fact.
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 which link in the carriage chain the obligation sat with, file the challenge inside the deadline, and put the evidence in while it can still be taken into account.
Before a consultation, gather copies of the protocol and the decision; proof of the date of service; the transport and accompanying documents; the contract with the carrier or the customer; photographs of the packaging and the vehicle; internal instructions and the document assigning responsibility; and, where the decision relies on repetition, the file from the earlier case. Bring what you have even if the list is incomplete: a gap in the file is itself information, and a line of defence can be built on it.