What Article 141 regulates
Article 141 of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia deals with setting up and operating radio installations without the proper registration or permit. The article describes two different situations and attaches a separate penalty to each. That division is the most important feature of the provision: depending on which of the two your conduct is tied to, the scale of exposure is dramatically different.
The law uses two terms — a radio broadcasting node and a radio broadcasting point. This is not a stylistic variation. The article treats them separately, describes them separately, and attaches penalties of entirely different weight to them. So if a report has been drawn up against you, the first thing to read is which of the two concepts the authority applied, and whether that concept matches the situation on the ground.
Two offences, two different fines
The two limbs of the article stand independently of each other and do not read as a single continuous range.
- Radio broadcasting node. Setting one up and operating it without the proper registration or permit (where such is required), regardless of its power, results in a fine on officials of between 10 and 50 minimum amounts of labour remuneration.
- Radio broadcasting point. Setting one up and operating it without the proper registration or permit (where such is required), irrespective of which department owns the node from which it is installed, results in a fine of up to half a minimum amount of labour remuneration.
The gap between the two limbs is substantial. In the first, the law ties the fine expressly to officials and sets a range running from 10 to 50. In the second, the article names no category of person and caps the fine at half a minimum amount — that is a ceiling rather than a range, since no lower figure is given. Neither limb states any sum in lari.
The bracket that decides the case
Both limbs repeat the same qualification: "where such is required". That short phrase is a full element of the offence and not a footnote. If registration or a permit was not mandatory for the particular installation at all, then nothing has been breached, and the question should never reach the size of the fine.
In practice this is where a great many cases come apart. A report will often record that no permit existed without also showing that a permit was required in this specific case. Those are two distinct assertions, and the second does not follow automatically from the first. Establishing which one the authority has actually made out is the natural starting point for a response.
Note also that both limbs name two acts — setting up and operating. In practice those two acts frequently belong to different people: the installation went in years ago, and somebody else, or some other organisation, services it today. So when reading the report, record separately which of the two acts is attributed to you and on what basis.
Power and departmental ownership
The article closes off two arguments in advance, and knowing this saves time. For the node, the law says in terms that the fine applies regardless of its power. Pointing out that the installation was weak or lightly loaded therefore does not, in itself, dissolve the offence.
For the point, the law states equally directly that the departmental ownership of the radio broadcasting node from which the point is installed makes no difference. The argument that "the node belonged to a different department" is already anticipated by the text as far as this limb is concerned. The room to work sits elsewhere: in how the conduct is classified, and in whether registration or a permit was required at all.
Together these two qualifications show how the provision is built. It deliberately removes technical characteristics and departmental ownership from the assessment and concentrates instead on whether the proper registration or permit existed. A defence constructed mainly out of technical detail therefore rarely carries a case under this article on its own.
Where representation changes the outcome
A lawyer will not promise you a result. What representation does is reduce the case to the questions the article genuinely turns on, and then evidence them properly.
- node or point — which of the two concepts actually fits the installation that exists;
- whether registration or a permit was mandatory in this specific case;
- whether you are an official for the purposes of the limb that names that category;
- whether the setting up and the operation were carried out by you or by somebody else;
- where within the permitted bounds the penalty should sit on the facts.
Article 141 says nothing about which body handles the case, how quickly you must respond, or how a decision is enforced — those matters belong to other provisions of the Code. The deadline and the authority therefore have to be established from the document served on you, not assumed.
What to bring to a consultation
A meeting is far more productive when the paperwork is already to hand. It helps to bring the following.
- The report or decision in full, with annexes and the date it was served.
- Technical description of the installation, schematics and any installation records.
- Any correspondence or application relating to a permit or to registration.
- A job description or appointment order, if the authority refers to you as an official.
- Photographs showing what is actually installed and how.