Article 232 of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia determines the circumstances under which proceedings in an administrative offence case must not be started, and a case already started must be terminated. This norm is one of the most important guarantees of fair proceedings: not every fact recorded in a protocol must end with a penalty, and in the cases provided for by law a case either never enters proceedings or the proceedings already begun are terminated. On this page we describe each group of these circumstances in detail and explain why knowledge of this norm is a real defence tool.
Factual and personal grounds
The first group concerns the fact itself and the person. A case must not be started, and a started case must be terminated, where the fact of an administrative offence does not exist — the simplest and at the same time most frequently disputed question: the body must establish not only that an act was committed, but also that it contains the elements of a breach. Further, proceedings are impossible in respect of a person who, at the moment of the commission of the offence, had not turned 16 years of age. Where the person who committed the unlawful act or omission was insane, the case is likewise terminated. And finally, where the person against whom proceedings had been started has died, the proceedings are terminated for that tragic reason — the subject of liability no longer exists.
Justifying circumstances
The second group covers situations where the act formally exists but is not socially dangerous or unlawful. Where a person acted in a state of extreme necessity — that is, could not otherwise avert a greater danger — or in a state of necessary defence, that is, was protecting himself from an attack, the case must be terminated. Legal theory calls these justifying circumstances: where they exist, an act that formally matches the elements of an offence is nonetheless not anti-social and is not punishable. Establishing these circumstances in each particular case is the subject of the most important factual inquiry, and evidence of the situation of danger or attack plays the decisive role.
Changes in legislation and limitation
The third group concerns the currency of the law. Where an amnesty act that has been adopted precludes the application of an administrative penalty, the case is terminated. Where the act establishing administrative liability has been repealed — that is, the norm that defined the act as an offence — proceedings on its basis cannot continue. And where, by the moment of the hearing of the case, the periods for imposing a penalty established by the Code have expired, the case must likewise be terminated — limitation is an absolute barrier to the imposition of a penalty. This group of circumstances confirms the principle that liability can exist only within the framework of a sanction that is in force and still possible in time.
An existing decision on the same fact and enforcement periods
The fourth group protects a person from being twice pursued for one fact. A case must not be started, and a started case must be terminated, where there exists a decision of a competent body (official) on the imposition of an administrative penalty in respect of the same fact, an unrescinded decision or a decision on the termination of the case, as well as where a criminal case exists on the same fact. In addition, a case is terminated where the decision on the imposition of a penalty has not been put into execution within the period established by the Code, and the decision on the charging of a surcharge has not been put into execution within the period established for surcharges. The surcharge situation is determined separately: where the fine ticket has not been served in accordance with the Code, the surcharge case is terminated. These rules also protect the formal order of proceedings: a decision that is not enforced in time loses its force.
Why this norm is a defence tool
Knowledge of Article 232 allows you to demand the termination of a case at an early stage:
- analyse whether the fact of an offence and its elements exist in your act at all;
- check age, the moment of insanity and the person's fate as established matters;
- document circumstances of extreme necessity or necessary defence with evidence;
- verify the limitation periods and any existing decisions on the same fact;
- where necessary, consult a lawyer — the correct formulation of the grounds for termination changes the outcome.
Conclusion
Article 232 is the safety valve of administrative proceedings: it determines when a case must not be started and when a started case must be terminated — where the fact does not exist, where the person was under 16, was insane, acted in extreme necessity or necessary defence, where amnesty applies, the norm has been repealed, limitation has expired, a decision on the same fact exists, the person has died or the decision was not enforced in time. If you need an assessment of whether grounds for termination exist in your case, the specialists at Legal.ge will help you analyse the documents and prepare a substantiated demand.