What Article 182² covers
Article 182² of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences addresses one specific situation: a closed and/or semi-closed shooting gallery, shooting range and/or clay-shooting hunting stand operating without the relevant permit. The article does not regulate how such a facility must be laid out or what technical requirements it must meet. It asks a single question — was the relevant permit in place at the time the facility was already operating.
That distinction matters in practice. Two facts sit at the centre of the case: the fact of operation, and the fact that no relevant permit existed. If either is not established, the elements the article describes are not complete. This is why so much in these cases turns on how the state of the facility on the day of the inspection was actually recorded.
The provision in its current form comes from amendments of 24 April 2012 and 31 May 2023. It has two parts, and both describe the same act; what separates them is whether the administrative penalty under part 1 has already been imposed on the person. Those are two independent questions — what happened on this occasion, and what happened earlier — and in practice they are easily run together.
Which facilities the article names
The article names three kinds of facility, and it qualifies each of them with the same characteristic — closed and/or semi-closed:
- a closed and/or semi-closed shooting gallery;
- a closed and/or semi-closed shooting range;
- a closed and/or semi-closed clay-shooting hunting stand.
Whether a particular facility falls within that description is a question of fact and depends on how the facility is actually built and used. The article does not go on to define what counts as "closed" or "semi-closed", so the classification has to be established from the case materials and from a real description of the premises rather than assumed from the label on the sign outside.
The sanction the article sets
Article 182² names two fixed amounts and does not set a range within which a figure could be adjusted:
- part 1 — operating without the relevant permit — a fine of GEL 2,000;
- part 2 — the same act committed by a person on whom the administrative penalty under part 1 has been imposed — a fine of GEL 5,000.
The article provides no other sanction. It does not mention a warning, it does not mention confiscation, and it does not mention closure of the facility. Part 2 also names no period of time: it requires only that the administrative penalty under part 1 of the same article has been imposed on the person. The date of that earlier penalty, and the provision it was imposed under, therefore need to be checked separately.
What is actually examined in the case
Because the amounts are fixed, arguing about the size of the fine leads nowhere. What matters is how the following circumstances are established:
- whether the facility was in fact operating, or was still being fitted out or prepared;
- whether the facility is closed or semi-closed in the sense the article uses;
- whether no permit existed at all, or one existed but for a different scope or a different facility;
- to whom the conduct is attributed — who was in fact running the operation;
- where part 2 is applied, whether an earlier penalty exists and whether it was imposed under part 1 of this same article.
Where a lawyer changes the outcome
A lawyer cannot promise you a result. What changes is that the position is built on facts rather than on general impressions. The part of the article actually applied is pinned down. Correspondence and documentation about the permit — an application, a refusal, a permit issued for something adjacent — are assembled into one file. The real state of the facility on the day of the inspection is recorded while it can still be recorded. And the subject named in the protocol is checked: whether the act is attributed to an individual or to an organisation is not a detail, because it determines who is answering the case.
Where part 2 has been invoked, the earlier penalty is examined separately — that it exists, when it was imposed, and under which provision — because the whole distance between GEL 2,000 and GEL 5,000 rests on that single point. An appeal is brought in the manner the Code provides; Article 182² itself sets no appeal deadline or forum, so that has to be established from the act imposing the penalty and the authority that issued it.
What to bring
Before a first consultation, gather what shows the real state of the facility and of the permit:
- every document handed to you — the protocol and the decision imposing the penalty, with annexes;
- everything relating to the permit — the application, the correspondence, any refusal, any permit actually issued;
- a description and photographs of the facility showing how it is built and enclosed;
- information about who was operating the facility and in what legal form;
- any record reflecting the state of the premises on the day of the inspection;
- details of any earlier administrative penalty, including the provision under which it was imposed.