Article 165²¹ and its purpose
Article 165²¹ of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia establishes administrative liability for failing to comply with a decision of the board for the review of disputes related to public procurement. The disputes board is a specialised instance for resolving disputes in the procurement field: its decisions order the questions of legality that arise between participants in a procurement. If those decisions had no real force, the entire dispute-review mechanism would lose its value — which is why the legislator attaches an administrative penalty to the non-compliance with a decision.
What counts as a violation
Under the first part of the article, the administrative offence consists in the failure to comply with a decision of the board for the review of disputes related to public procurement. The case therefore concerns a situation where a decision adopted by the board on a dispute is not executed by the person to whom it is directed. The time limits and the form of compliance with the decision are determined by the board's decision and by the regulations of the procurement field — the article attaches liability precisely to the fact of non-compliance.
It is noteworthy that the norm protects the authority of the dispute-review institution: its essence is that the outcome established by the board is actually reflected in the procurement process. Non-compliance breaks that chain and denies the participant of the dispute the result lawfully obtained.
The fine for a first violation: GEL 1,000
The first part of the article provides that the failure to comply with the board's decision entails a fine of GEL 1,000 imposed on the responsible person of the purchasing organisation, of the authorised body provided for by the Law of Georgia on Public and Private Cooperation, or of the selection commission. This is the base penalty applied when a first violation is established.
A repeat violation: GEL 2,000
The second part of the article establishes a separate composition: the same act, committed within one year of the imposition of an administrative penalty for such an act, entails a fine of GEL 2,000. The tiers must be kept clearly distinct: a first violation — GEL 1,000, and a repetition within one year of the imposition of the penalty — GEL 2,000; writing them into a single range distorts the norm.
The repeat-offence period begins at the moment the administrative penalty is imposed — it is this date that determines which part of the article applies to the new facts.
Who is liable
The article shows that the subjects of the penalty are the responsible persons of the purchasing organisation, of the authorised body provided for by the Law of Georgia on Public and Private Cooperation, or of the selection commission. Liability may thus be imposed on the responsible natural person of different subjects — the purchaser, the authorised cooperation body or the selection commission — depending on which of them the decision to be executed was directed to.
Procedural questions
The drawing up of 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 — they are determined by other provisions of the Code. Likewise, the detailed mechanism for executing the board's decision is determined by the regulations of the procurement field.
Practical recommendations
If a decision of the board concerns your organisation or commission, it is best to plan its execution without delay: appoint a responsible member of staff, record the actions to be performed and document each step. If the execution of the decision encounters a real obstacle, recording that obstacle and responding through the channels provided by the regulations of the field ensures a well-founded defence of the position. Consulting a lawyer at this stage substantially reduces the risk.
When planning the execution of the decision, the first step should be to define its content precisely: what actions the board requires, who bears each of them, and through which stages the execution must proceed. Such planning prevents partial execution, which may itself be assessed under this article as non-compliance.
Documenting every action taken — orders, correspondence, published acts — creates the complete chain of records that confirms, when the case is examined, that the decision was actually carried out. In the absence of documents, substantiating even genuinely performed actions becomes difficult.
Where the decision requires the coordination of several subjects, it is useful to place responsibility for coordination on a single person and to set internal deadlines, so that the process of execution does not stall at organisational boundaries. Such simple organisational decisions are often precisely the line between a violation and due execution.
It is also worth noting that disputed questions arising during execution — for example, the need to interpret a point of the decision — are best resolved through the channels provided by the regulations of the field rather than through silence, since inaction over time itself acquires the features of non-compliance.