What Article 196⁶ of the Administrative Offences Code covers
Article 196⁶ of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia establishes administrative liability for failing to report a conclusion on a psychiatric disorder diagnosed in respect of a person liable for military service. The norm is addressed to medical institutions: where an institution has issued such a conclusion and has not notified the corresponding competent authority within the established period, this constitutes an administrative offence and is punished by a fine.
The provision serves the protection of state interests connected with military service: information about the health status of a person liable for military service must reach the competent authorities in due time. The subject of the offence is precisely the party on whom the duty of notification is imposed — that is, the corresponding medical institution.
What period is set for the notification
The first part of the article fixes the period precisely: no later than 10 calendar days from the issuing of the conclusion, the medical institution must notify the corresponding competent authority. Ten calendar days are counted as calendar days — a detail that matters when calculating the deadline. If no notification takes place within this period, the medical institution is fined 100 GEL.
What happens on a repeated offence
The second part provides a stricter sanction for repetition: if the offence described in the first part is repeated within 1 year of the imposition of the administrative penalty, the fine amounts to 300 GEL. The window of repetition is thus one year from the moment the penalty was imposed, and a second failure to notify within that period entails three times the original fine.
What the institution must do and when liability arises
A precondition of liability is that the medical institution has in fact issued a conclusion on a psychiatric disorder in respect of a person liable for military service. Where no such conclusion exists, there is nothing to report and no failure to report. Where the conclusion has been issued, the institution must notify the competent authority about it in the prescribed form; the procedure for such notification is regulated by legislation, and its breach may become the subject of an administrative case.
When such a case is examined, the dates recorded — when the conclusion was issued and whether and when the notification followed — form the basis for establishing a breach of the period. Documentary fixation of conclusions and notifications is therefore essential for medical institutions: it is precisely this documentation that determines whether a breach of the deadline can be proved.
How we can help
The lawyers of legal.ge assist both medical institutions against which a case under Article 196⁶ has been brought and the persons who manage such institutions: we assess compliance with the periods and the case materials, examine circumstances excluding or mitigating liability, and prepare an appeal. We can also help you organise internal workflows so that such breaches do not recur.
Why timely notification matters
A conclusion on a psychiatric disorder is used for decisions connected with military service: the registration of persons liable for military service, health assessment and the corresponding administrative processes all depend on this information. That is why the law fixes a strict period — 10 calendar days — and that is why the breach is sanctioned. Exceeding the period means that the competent authority receives the information late, and this delay is precisely the circumstance by which the fact of the breach is established in the case.
How the institution's internal process should be organised
In practice, to reduce the risk of liability under this norm, a medical institution needs a simple and transparent internal process: every conclusion concerning a psychiatric disorder of a person liable for military service should be registered with the date of its issue, and its dispatch to the corresponding competent authority should be subject to deadline control. Such registration serves two functions: on the one hand it prevents an accidental overrun of the period, and on the other it gives the institution documentary means, if a case is examined, to establish that the notification was made in time.
The internal allocation of responsibility also matters: who is responsible for recording the issuing of a conclusion and who for sending the notification. This does not change the sanction established by law, which attaches to the institution, but it reduces the risk that a single careless step turns into an administrative case.
One further circumstance deserves attention: the one-year window of repetition from the imposition of the penalty means that after a first fine the institution should exercise particular care precisely during that period, since a second breach within that time is punished with a 300 GEL fine.