What Article 144¹¹ covers
Article 144¹¹ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences combines two rather different situations into a single provision. The first is a breach of the rules on placing information harmful to a child on the internet, and of the rules on children's access to the internet network in general education institutions, libraries and specialised children's institutions. The second is failure to comply with a decision of the body holding the relevant supervisory power. These two grounds are alternatives: neither depends on the other, and each on its own is enough to found liability. That structural point matters from the first day of a case, because the first thing to establish is which ground the protocol is actually built on — the content itself, or the failure to comply with a decision. The defence runs along completely different lines in each situation, and material that is decisive for one is often irrelevant to the other.
The sanction the article sets
The article has two parts. Under part 1, breaching those rules or failing to comply with the authorised body's decision carries a fine of 1,000 lari. Under part 2, the same act committed repeatedly carries a fine of 3,000 lari. Both are fixed sums. The law sets no range, and it does not vary the amount according to the category of person involved. Two consequences follow. First, there is no room to argue the amount down within this provision — the figure is what the article says it is. Second, a repeat classification adds 2,000 lari to the outcome, which makes it a substantial and separate point of dispute. It is entirely possible to accept the underlying facts and still contest, on its own, whether the case genuinely qualifies as a repeat under part 2.
Who the provision reaches
The text does not name a category of liable person. What it does name, precisely, is the settings in which the rules on children's internet access matter. In practice the provision reaches:
- a person who places information harmful to a child on the internet;
- a general education institution where children have access to the internet;
- a library that offers readers the use of an internet connection;
- a specialised children's institution;
- any addressee who received a decision from the authorised body and did not comply with it.
Because the article fixes one amount for everyone, how the person is classified does not change the size of the fine. It does determine whose name the protocol is drawn up in, who becomes the party to the dispute, and against whom a future repeat allegation would be measured.
Non-compliance with a decision is a ground of its own
The most frequently overlooked part of this article is the second ground. The law lists non-compliance among the alternative bases of liability, which means a fine can follow simply because a decision of the authorised body was not carried out, independently of whether its substance is disputed. If you are challenging the decision and assume that the challenge suspends the obligation to comply with it, that assumption needs to be checked separately and in advance. Article 144¹¹ says nothing about suspensive effect, and you will not find the answer to that question inside this provision. It is worth noting that the wording in force is comparatively recent: the article was amended by the law of 20 September 2019 and the law of 21 May 2020.
Where a lawyer changes the outcome
The line of defence depends on which ground the protocol rests on. In a content case, what is contested is whether the specific material qualifies as information harmful to a child, and whether it is established that you were the person who placed it. In an institutional case, the questions become which rule was treated as breached and what measures were actually in place on the date in question — settings, filtering arrangements, supervision, and who was responsible for them. In a non-compliance case, the focus shifts to whether the decision was validly served, when, and what it required. A lawyer's contribution is to separate those three scenarios rather than answering all of them at once, to preserve the evidence before it changes, and to put the position into the correct form within the appeal period. The article itself names neither the body that hears the case nor the deadline for challenging the decision; both come from other provisions of the Code and are stated in the document served on you, which is why that document is the first thing to read.
What to gather before the consultation
Evidence in digital cases is unusually unstable: pages change, logs are overwritten, settings are updated. Collect the following as early as possible:
- the protocol and the decision imposing the fine, with proof of the date of service;
- the earlier decision or instruction from the authorised body, if the case rests on non-compliance;
- dated screenshots of the disputed material, together with the page address;
- the institution's internal rules on internet access and its filtering settings as they stood on the relevant date;
- system logs and the document appointing the responsible person;
- the earlier decision that has entered into force, if the fine imposed is 3,000 lari.