How much is the fine in lari?

Article 42³ does not name a lari sum. It sets the penalty as a multiple of the minimum salary — 20 minimum salaries, and 50 for a repeat. The lari figure appears in the decision as the result of a calculation, so it is worth checking what unit and what value that calculation was based on.

We filed the notification late. Does that remove liability?

The article attaches the penalty to carrying on the activity without the notification, that is, to the period during which the agency operated while no notification existed. What matters is therefore the date on the protocol and the date on which submission of the notification is evidenced. Comparing those two dates is often the decisive element of the case.

Is the fine imposed on the company or on its director?

The article ties liability to carrying on the activity of a private employment agency. The practical question is who was carrying on that activity and who the protocol is drawn up against. If the addressee named in the protocol does not match the factual position, that is a separate point and it is raised within the same case.

Does a foreign recruitment company operating in Georgia fall under this article?

The article itself draws no distinction by the origin of the operator: it asks whether the activity of a private employment agency was carried on without the notification required by Article 32(1) of the Law "On Employment". Whether that duty arose for a particular entity is a question for that Law rather than for Article 42³, and it is the first point to establish in the file.

Operating a private employment agency without the mandatory notification (Art. 42³)

What Article 42³ actually covers

Article 42³ of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia protects one narrow obligation. A private employment agency may carry on its activity only once the mandatory notification provided for by Article 32(1) of the Law of Georgia "On Employment" has been made. Where the agency operates without that notification, the activity itself completes the offence. Liability does not turn on whether a particular jobseeker was harmed, whether a placement contract was signed, or how many people were actually placed.

That narrowness matters, because it decides what a defence has to be about. Submissions about service quality, the absence of complaints, or the agency's good faith do not answer the charge — the charge concerns a missing notification. Conversely, evidence that the notification was in fact made, or that the activity in question is not what the Law "On Employment" describes as the activity of a private employment agency, goes directly to an element of the offence.

The sanction the article provides

The article sets out two amounts, and they are separated by a single question — whether the conduct is a repeat.

Activity of a private employment agency without the mandatory notification — a fine of 20 minimum salaries;
The same act committed within 1 year of the imposition of an administrative penalty — a fine of 50 minimum salaries.

Both figures are fixed. The article creates no band within which an authority selects a sum, so there is no discretionary range to argue down inside the norm itself. Note also how the penalty is expressed: in multiples of the minimum salary rather than in a stated number of lari, and Article 42³ does not define the monetary value of that unit. The lari figure that appears on a decision is therefore a calculation applied to the article rather than a number contained in it, which is a reason to check that part of the decision separately. The article provides no other measure — no confiscation, no suspension of activity, no accompanying sanction of any kind.

How the repeat rule is counted

The higher amount applies where the same act is committed within one year of the imposition of an administrative penalty. The period therefore runs from the moment the earlier penalty was imposed — not from the date of an inspection, not from the date the protocol was drawn up, and not from the date the earlier fine was paid. In practice this is where files most often fail: the materials refer to an earlier case, but the date on which the earlier penalty was imposed is not evidenced, or falls outside the one-year period. Where that circumstance is not established, the basis for applying 50 minimum salaries instead of 20 falls away.

What a case is really argued about

Because the article is short and the amount is fixed, the dispute is usually not about the size of the fine but about the elements of the offence. Several circumstances are checked first.

Whether the activity really was that of a private employment agency in the sense the Law "On Employment" gives that term;
Whether the notification was submitted and, if it was, what evidences the fact and the date of submission;
Who the protocol names — a legal entity or an individual — and whether that matches the person who in fact carried on the activity;
On a repeat charge, whether the earlier penalty and the exact date it was imposed are documented in the file.

None of these is a formality; each can independently carry a position. Beyond them, the outcome depends on the evidence in the particular file rather than on any rule stated in the article, because Article 42³ contains no list of grounds of appeal and says nothing about what the decision must recite.

What to gather before a consultation

If a protocol has already been drawn up, or a decision imposing the fine has been served on you, collect the documents that reconstruct the factual picture before you speak to a lawyer.

A copy of the protocol and of the decision with every annex, including the part that shows how the amount was calculated;
The text of the notification and whatever evidences its submission, if it was submitted;
The company's registration data and a real description of the activity — contracts, advertisements, copies of the website and marketing materials;
Any correspondence with the competent authority;
The document evidencing the earlier penalty, where the charge is a repeat one.

Where a lawyer changes the outcome

Representation matters at two stages in this category of case. The first is the inspection and protocol stage, where the explanations given and the documents produced determine which facts the rest of the case is built on. The second is the appeal stage, where what counts is not that you disagree with the fine but which specific circumstance the file fails to establish. The procedure and time limit for challenging the decision are not written into Article 42³ — they follow from the general part of the Code and from the procedure stated in the decision itself, so reading that part of the document as soon as it arrives is the sensible first step. On Legal.ge you can find a lawyer who works on administrative offence cases and pass the file straight to them.