Article 165¹³ and its purpose
Article 165¹³ of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia establishes administrative liability for taking part in a public procurement while a conflict of interest exists. The norm protects the integrity of the procurement process: procedures must run in an impartial environment, and personal or group interests must not influence decisions concerning the expenditure of public resources. A conflict of interest is one of the most sensitive risks in procurement, because it can covertly distort the competitive environment; for that reason the legislator treats participation in a procurement despite such a conflict as a separate offence.
What counts as a violation
Under the first part of the article, an administrative offence is committed by taking part in a public procurement in the presence of a conflict of interest. The case therefore concerns a situation where a person participates in a procurement procedure at a time when there is a conflict between that person's private interest and the public duty owed in relation to the procedure. The article itself does not define the concept in detail — the meaning of a conflict of interest and the forms of participation are determined by the legislation governing the field of public procurement, and in a concrete case the established factual circumstances are assessed.
The preventive thrust of the norm is strong. Its essence is that an official or other participant should promptly declare a possible conflict of interest and withdraw from the procedure, so that no doubt is cast on the impartiality of the decisions. Where this does not happen and the person remains a participant in the procedure, the question of administrative liability arises.
The fine for a first violation: GEL 1,000
The first part of the article provides that taking part in a public procurement in the presence of a conflict of interest entails a fine of GEL 1,000 imposed on the responsible person. The fine is of a fixed amount: under this part it does not vary with circumstances, which means that where the offence is established, the responsible person bears precisely this amount.
A repeat violation: GEL 2,000
The second part of the article establishes a separate composition for a repeat offence: the same act, committed within one year of the imposition of an administrative penalty for such an act, entails a fine of GEL 2,000. This is a separate, stricter tier of penalty, and it must not be compressed with the first tier into a single general formulation — a first violation is punished with a fine of GEL 1,000, while a repetition within one year is punished with a fine of GEL 2,000. The period is counted from the moment the administrative penalty was imposed.
The point of the recidivist rule is that a person who has already been penalised for the same act answers more strictly during the following year. In practice it is therefore essential to establish exactly when the previous penalty was imposed on the person, since this determines which part of the article applies to the new case.
Who is liable
In the direct wording of the article, the penalty is borne by the responsible person. The subject of liability is thus a natural person who, in the relevant role, took part in the procurement procedure under conditions of a conflict of interest. The precise circle of responsible persons and the distribution of roles within the procurement process are determined by the regulations of the field and the general norms of the Code, while the existence of guilt is assessed separately in each case.
Procedural questions
The authority empowered to draw up the protocol, the time limits for examining the case, the procedure for adopting the decision and the appeal procedure are not regulated directly by this article — these matters are determined by other provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences. As in other administrative cases, observance of time limits and a timely written position are decisive in defending against liability.
Practical recommendations
If you take part in any stage of a public procurement — preparation, evaluation or decision-making — and you believe that your private interest could touch the procedure, the safest course is to declare that interest promptly and withdraw from the procedure. The format and procedure of the declaration are determined by the regulations of the procurement field. Such conduct protects both you and the public credibility of the procedure, and it does not place the outcome of the procurement in doubt. In a doubtful situation, consulting a lawyer substantially reduces the risks.
The danger of a conflict of interest lies precisely in its hidden nature: from the outside the procedure may look entirely proper while its outcome is in fact shaped by a private interest. That is why the law demands abstention from participation when a conflict exists — a requirement aimed at protecting the equal standing of suppliers and public trust in procurement.
In practice the decisive step is the timely declaration of a possible conflict. Declaring the interest and withdrawing from the procedure prevents a situation where the person can no longer substantiate impartiality at a later examination, and at the same time preserves the public legitimacy of the procedure. Remaining in the procedure unawares, by contrast, creates a risk both of administrative liability and of doubt being cast over the outcome of the procurement.