Article 39 of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia establishes the period after the expiry of which a person is deemed not to have been subjected to an administrative penalty. This institution is of great practical importance, because many norms attach stricter sanctions to repeated commission: a person who is still deemed to have been penalised faces aggravated consequences for a new breach. On this page we explain in detail when and how the one-year period begins to run, what difference exists between a fine and other penalties, and why the full payment of a fine is decisive for a separate category of cases.
The general rule — one year from the serving of the penalty
Under the first part of the article, if a person subjected to an administrative penalty has not committed a new administrative offence within 1 year from the day of the serving of that penalty, the person is deemed not to have been penalised, except where the penalty imposed was a fine. This means that for non-monetary penalties the period runs from the moment the penalty is actually served — that is, enforced. It is essential that the person must actually have been released from the penalty: while the penalty has not been served, the period does not begin to run at all.
The case of a fine — one year from the day of imposition
The second part of the article regulates the case of a fine separately: where an administrative penalty is imposed in the form of a fine, the person is deemed not to have been penalised if, within 1 year from the day of the imposition of the fine, the person does not commit a new administrative offence, except in the case provided for by the third part of this article. The starting point for a fine is therefore different: not the serving of the penalty but the imposition of the fine. This distinction has a practical consequence: non-payment of the fine neither suspends nor extends the period — the period runs from the day of imposition.
The special category — one year from full payment of the fine
The third part of the article establishes an exception to the general rule for fines: where a fine is imposed for the commission of an administrative offence provided for by a range of separately listed provisions of the Code, the person is deemed not to have been penalised only after the expiry of 1 year from the full payment of the fine. For this category neither the day of imposition nor the moment of serving is decisive — only the actual, complete payment of the fine. Such an approach is aimed at ensuring that, for breaches of the spheres protected by these norms, the person actually performs the obligation, and only then does the period begin to run.
Why this period matters in practice
The status of a person deemed not to have been penalised is directly connected with the severity of sanctions:
- many norms of the Administrative Offences Code attach significantly stricter fines to repeated commission, and repetition is established precisely within the period in which the person is still deemed to have been penalised;
- if a year has passed and no new offence has been committed, the previous penalty no longer counts and cannot be applied as an aggravating circumstance;
- in the case of a fine, the correct determination of the starting moment — imposition or full payment — often changes the entire outcome;
- a mistakenly recorded status of a penalised person in official documents should be challenged by way of a complaint.
How to establish the starting moment in your case
In practical terms, establishing the starting moment begins with an analysis of three documents: first, the decision imposing the penalty, which shows the type of penalty and the date of its imposition; second, the document confirming the serving of the penalty or the payment of the fine, which records the day of enforcement or full payment; and third, the protocol of the new offence, whose date must be compared against the one-year period. If, at the moment of the commission of the new breach, the period had already expired, repetition is not established and the stricter sanction cannot be applied. Such an analysis should always be carried out at an early stage — before the hearing of the case — so that the respective argument is submitted in good time and supported by the correct documents.
Conclusion
Article 39 determines three situations: as a general rule, a person is deemed not to have been penalised if no new offence is committed within one year of the serving of the penalty; in the case of a fine, that period runs from the day the fine is imposed; and for fines under separately listed provisions — from the full payment of the fine. The correct application of these periods often changes the outcome of a case, because the qualification of repetition rests on them. If you need your status assessed, the specialists at Legal.ge will help you analyse the documents and build the right argument.