What Article 144¹⁰ actually prohibits
Article 144¹⁰ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences governs the language conditions attached to screening a film in a cinema hall. It describes two distinct acts. The first is screening a film in its original production language without complying with the mandatory condition of subtitling or dubbing into the state language of Georgia. The second is screening a film in a language that is not its original production language at all. The article states expressly that it covers documentary and animated films as well, so it is not limited to feature cinema. Only one liable subject is named in the text, and it is named precisely: the film exhibitor, the person who carries out the screening. The provision says nothing about the film's author, its supplier or the audience. That detail often matters in practice, because organising a screening and supplying the print are frequently in different hands.
The sanctions the article sets
The article has three parts and the sanction escalates across them. Under part 1, the conduct described above carries a fine of 1,500 lari. Under part 2, the same act committed repeatedly carries a fine of 3,000 lari. Under part 3, the same act committed for a third time or more carries a fine of 10,000 lari. In all three cases the law names a fixed sum rather than a range. That has a direct consequence: there is no room under this provision to argue the amount down, and equally none to push it up. Everything reduces to two questions — was the act committed at all, and is this the first, the second, or the third and subsequent instance. The gap between the first and third steps is 8,500 lari, which is why the count of prior instances deserves scrutiny entirely separate from the facts of the screening itself.
Two different offences inside one provision
From a practical standpoint, the decisive question is which of the two acts is actually alleged, because each turns on different facts. If the case concerns the first act, the issue is whether the subtitling or dubbing condition in the state language was satisfied — and the article offers these as alternatives, so providing either one is enough. If the case concerns the second act, the issue is entirely different: what the film's original production language is, and what language the screening was actually conducted in. These two questions do not substitute for one another and should be separated in the case file:
- the language of the screening — what language the film's audio track ran in at that particular session;
- subtitles or dubbing — whether they existed in the state language, and for the whole session;
- the original production language — the language in which the film was first made;
- the venue — the article speaks specifically about screening in a cinema hall;
- the type of film — the article expressly includes documentary and animated films.
One further point deserves attention. The article does not define what makes an act repeated, nor what makes it a third instance, nor over what period earlier instances are counted. None of that can be read out of the text, so those questions are resolved under the general provisions of the Code and on the facts of the case. If the authority is applying part 2 or part 3, ask separately for the earlier decisions the classification rests on: the difference between the steps runs into thousands of lari.
What you can do, and where a lawyer changes the outcome
Article 144¹⁰ describes only the conduct and the sanction. It does not set an appeal deadline, does not name the body that hears a challenge, and does not say what the decision must contain. Those questions are governed by the general provisions of the Code, and the specific deadline and address will be stated in the document served on you. The first step is therefore to read that document carefully and record the date of service in writing. The real space for legal work under this article sits at the level of facts: whether the language of the screening has been correctly identified, whether state-language subtitles or dubbing were in fact present, whether the film's original production language has been correctly determined, and — no less important — whether the instance has been correctly counted, because that single question decides whether the figure is 1,500, 3,000 or 10,000 lari.
What to check and what to gather
Start collecting documents the same day the protocol or decision reaches you, because technical data tied to a single screening is routinely overwritten or lost. The following are usually worth having:
- the session schedule and ticketing data for the specific date and auditorium;
- the paperwork under which the film was received, showing which language version was supplied;
- technical data for the subtitle or dubbing file, and any log confirming it ran on screen;
- written explanations from the staff who worked that session;
- the earlier decisions, if the authority is treating this as a repeat or a third instance.
Because the amount itself cannot be argued under this provision, precision on the facts is the only real resource you have. A screening that was documented at the time is a far stronger position than an account reconstructed from memory months later.