What Article 172⁹ actually prohibits
Article 172⁹ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences deals with newspapers, magazines and other print media publications that contain information harmful to a child. It prohibits three things done in relation to such a publication: selling it to a child, giving it to a child as a gift, and making it accessible to a child in any other form. All three are treated identically. The law does not require that money changed hands, and it does not require that anyone physically handed the publication over. The third limb, making a publication accessible in another form, is by far the broadest of the three, and in practice it is where most disputes sit. The article itself does not define what counts as making a publication accessible, so that question is settled on the facts of each individual case rather than by a rule you can look up in the text.
The sanction the article sets
The article has two parts. Under part 1, selling, gifting or otherwise making such a publication accessible to a child carries a fine of 500 lari. Under part 2, the same act committed repeatedly carries a fine of 1,000 lari. Both are fixed sums, not ranges, and that detail matters more than it first appears. Because the provision names an exact amount, there is nothing to argue about on quantum: the decision-maker cannot set a lower figure because the circumstances were sympathetic, and cannot raise it either. Everything therefore reduces to two binary questions — was the act committed at all, and is this a first instance or a repeat one. The gap between the two parts is 500 lari, which is why the repeat classification is worth contesting in its own right, separately from the underlying facts.
Who ends up liable
The text does not list categories of liable person. It draws no distinction between a citizen, an official and a business, and it sets one amount for everyone. The practical question is simply who carried out the sale, the gift or the act of making the publication accessible. That question can reach anyone who was in a position to do one of those three things, including:
- a kiosk or shop assistant who handed the publication directly to a child;
- a retail outlet where the publication sat in a place a child could freely reach;
- a person who gave the publication to a child free of charge.
Because the amount is identical across categories, how the person is classified does not change the money. It does change who the protocol is drawn up against, who becomes the party to any appeal, and against whom the record stands if the repeat question arises later.