The fine is 500 lari. Can it be reduced?

Part 1 of Article 172⁹ sets a fixed sum of 500 lari, not a range, so there is no scope under this provision to argue the amount down. The only available route is to challenge whether the offence occurred at all. If the protocol is factually wrong, the mechanism is an appeal, not a request for leniency on quantum.

Why was I fined 1,000 lari rather than 500?

1,000 lari is the part 2 sanction and applies only where the same act was committed repeatedly. If you do not accept that a qualifying earlier instance exists, that is the specific point to challenge. The difference between the two parts is 500 lari.

The magazine was on an open shelf and nothing was sold to a child. Is that still an offence?

Alongside selling, the article covers gifting and making a publication accessible in any other form. The text does not define what accessibility means in practice, so it is assessed on the facts of the individual case. That is usually where the real argument lies.

How long do I have to appeal?

Article 172⁹ does not set the deadline. It comes from the general provisions of the Code and is stated in the decision served on you. Check that document first, and record the date you received it in writing.

Does it matter that I did not know what the publication contained?

The text of Article 172⁹ says nothing about intent or knowledge. You therefore cannot read this provision as making a lack of knowledge a defence, nor as making it irrelevant — the question is resolved under the general provisions of the Code and on the facts of the case.

Giving children access to a harmful print publication (Art. 172⁹)

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.

How the case runs

An administrative offence case begins with a protocol drawn up by the body holding the relevant supervisory power, and ends with a decision imposing the fine. Article 172⁹ does not name the body that hears cases of this kind, and it does not set an appeal deadline. Both come from other provisions of the Code, so nothing in this article can tell you how many days you have. The document served on you can. Read it before anything else: it identifies the authority that took the decision, the period within which it can be challenged, and where the challenge is filed. Record the date of service in writing on the day it happens. A missed deadline decides more of these cases than a weak set of facts does, and it is the one part of the process that lies entirely within your control.

Where a lawyer changes the outcome

Disputes under this article are almost always factual rather than legal. A defence normally works by separating the chain into its links and testing each one: whether the specific publication contained information harmful to a child; whether the recipient was a child, and whether the seller was in a position to establish that; whether a sale, a gift, or an act of making the publication accessible took place at all; and, where the fine is 1,000 lari, whether the repeat element is genuinely supported by an earlier decision that has entered into force. A lawyer's contribution is to work out which link is weakest, gather the evidence while it still exists, identify defects in the protocol itself, and put the position into the correct form inside the appeal period. No one can promise that a fine will be annulled. What representation does is ensure that the strongest version of your account is the one that reaches the file.

What to gather before the consultation

Much of what decides these cases exists only briefly and then disappears. Collect the following as early as you can:

the administrative offence protocol and the decision imposing the fine, together with proof of the date they were served;
the publication itself, or its exact title, issue number and date of publication;
the till receipt or sales record, if a sale was registered;
CCTV footage from the outlet, before it is overwritten;
internal rules on age checks and on where publications are displayed;
the earlier decision, if the case is being treated as a repeat offence.