The purpose of Article 165²²
Article 165²² of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia governs liability for the failure to provide defined information to a public law legal entity — the Public Procurement Agency — or for providing false information to it. The information is determined by the Law of Georgia on Public Procurement and/or by an order of the Chairman of the Agency. The norm protects the information competence of the agency — the foundation of its supervision of public procurement.
Providing information to the agency is an element of the transparency of procuring organisations: a supervisory body can build its control only on complete and correct data. False information is therefore no less harmful than a failure to provide it — both forms are punished by the same article.
The amounts of the fines
The article regulates sanctions in two parts:
- part one — failure to provide the defined information to the agency, or the provision of false information — a fine on the head of the procuring organisation of 1 000 lari;
- part two — the same conduct committed within 1 year of the imposition of an administrative penalty for such conduct — a fine of 2 000 lari.
The sanction is personal: it is the head of the procuring organisation, and not the organisation as a legal entity, who is fined. Repetition is defined here through a one-year period — committing the same conduct within a year of the penalty doubles the fine.
The meaning of the note
The article carries a note: the norm does not apply to requests for information made by the Public Procurement Agency in accordance with certain individual provisions of the Law on Public Procurement. This exception limits the scope of the article: for a defined type of request provided for by the law, this sanction does not apply. In the assessment of a concrete case it is therefore necessary to verify whether the request falls within the content of this exception.
Organising the provision of information
For a procuring organisation, managing the risks of this article is a question of informational discipline: it is important to have a clear internal procedure — who receives the agency's requests, who prepares the response, who verifies the correctness of the data and within what deadline it is sent. To reduce the risk of false information, a double check before sending is decisive: a single error in a response attracts the same sanction as not sending a response at all.
The practical meaning of the one-year period
The one-year period of part two means that after a penalty has been imposed, the head of the organisation remains for a year in a heightened risk zone: committing the same conduct within that period raises the fine from 1 000 to 2 000 lari. Reviewing and reinforcing the informational procedures after a penalty is therefore not merely a recommendation but a practical necessity.
What the article does not regulate
Article 165²² defines the elements of the offence and the sanctions. Which specific information the agency needs and in which form is governed by the Law on Public Procurement and by orders of the Chairman of the Agency, while the procedure of administrative proceedings is governed by other provisions of the Code. A full assessment of a concrete case requires these sources together.
The personal character of liability
The fact that the fine is imposed specifically on the head of the organisation has practical consequences: the sanction is not limited to the organisation's budget but is a personal financial obligation. The head therefore has a personal interest in ensuring that the informational procedures rest on a method rather than on chance. For an officeholder this is one more argument for reinforcing the internal order.
The risks of false information
Providing false information is often an underestimated risk: intuitively an incomplete response seems a minor flaw, but from the point of view of the norm it attracts the same sanction as not providing a response at all. When preparing data it is therefore important to verify the sources, to double-check the figures against primary documentation and to exercise control before the response is sent — such simple steps sharply reduce the risk of a sanction.
How Legal.ge can help
If you are the head of a procuring organisation and a case under this article has arisen, it is important to verify the content of the request, the fact of the provision of information and the effect of the exception contained in the note. The Legal.ge team will help you analyse the case materials, verify the qualification and defend your position. We examine each case individually and recommend well-grounded steps.