What Article 185¹ of the Administrative Offences Code covers
Article 185¹ of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia establishes administrative liability for failing to report a person's death, in the manner established by law, to the State Services Development Agency. The norm is addressed to persons engaged in activities connected with death — the heads and authorised representatives of medical, social-service and other institutions. The breach entails a fine of 500 GEL.
The article protects a public interest: information about deaths is one of the pillars of the state registration system, and its timely provision is a duty established by law. Failure to notify is a sanctioned breach of that duty.
On whom the duty to notify is imposed
Article 185¹ names the circle of persons on whom the duty is imposed. These are: the head of a state, local or private medical institution or an authorised representative of its administration appointed by him; the head of an institution carrying out pathologoanatomic activity (clinical pathology) and forensic medical examination; the head of a boarding home (pensionariat), a shelter, a penitentiary institution; a person authorised by the mayor of the municipality; and a person holding the authority to issue a medical death certificate.
The duty therefore arises not for everyone who learns of a death, but only for the subjects listed in this article. When a case is examined, precisely this must be established: whether the accused person belongs to the circle provided for by the article and whether the corresponding duty was imposed on him or her.
To whom and in what manner the notification must be made
The addressee of the notification is the State Services Development Agency. The manner in which the notification is made is established by law — there is a defined form and procedure, compliance with which is part of the duty. The article itself does not describe the details of that procedure: it establishes only the liability for the case where the notification is not made in the manner established by law.
In practice, two facts must be established in the case: that a death occurred, and that the Agency did not receive a notification about it in the prescribed manner. If a notification was made but with a certain defect, the matter turns on whether the person complied with the prescribed manner — again a factual circumstance established from the case materials.
What sanction is established
Article 185¹ provides a single sanction: a fine of 500 GEL. The periods and procedure for paying the fine are governed by the general norms of the Code, which are common to administrative fines. The article contains no separate aggravated sanction for repetition.
How we can help
The lawyers of legal.ge assist both institutions against which a case under Article 185¹ has been brought and their heads: we assess whether the duty to notify was in fact imposed on the person, verify the case materials and the lawfulness of the protocol, defend you before the reviewing authority and prepare an appeal. We also help put internal processes in order so that notifications about deaths are made in the prescribed manner and on time.
Why this duty matters and how an institution protects itself
The notification about a death goes to the State Services Development Agency, and the operation of other state registrations and services depends on this information. That is why the legislature covered the duty with a sanction: the 500 GEL fine is meant to make institutions take the obligation seriously. In today's practice the fine is a modest sum, but the recorded fact of a breach can still be reflected in the assessment of an institution's activity — prevention is far cheaper than paying the fine.
Reducing the risk is possible through a few simple steps. First, it must be precisely determined who is the person holding the function provided for by the article within the institution: does the head make the notification personally or entrust it to an authorised representative. Second, every death is recorded, and the notification about it is fitted into the prescribed manner: who, when and in what form informs the Agency. Third, the fact of the notification is preserved documentarily, so that the institution can, if necessary, prove that the duty was performed.
These three steps together create the minimal contour that practically eliminates the risk of a breach. If a breach nevertheless occurred and a case has been brought, the emphasis shifts to the case materials: whether the prescribed manner was observed, whether a notification in any form took place, and whether the accused person belongs to the circle of subjects fixed by the article. Each of these questions is legally significant, and framing them correctly often changes the outcome of the case.