Administrative Liability in the Sanitary Sphere
The protection of public health is one of the priority functions of the state, and for this purpose the legislation establishes sanitary-hygienic and sanitary-anti-epidemic rules and norms. Article 43 of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia defines liability for the violation of these rules and norms. These provisions apply to natural persons, legal persons, and institutions alike, and their violation leads to an administrative fine. If you or your business has become a party to a case connected with sanitary supervision, it is important to know your rights, the quantitative boundaries of the fines, and who is authorized to hear the case. These are exactly the questions we explain on this page, while a conclusion on a specific case requires consultation with a lawyer who works with administrative matters on a daily basis.
What Conduct Counts as a Violation Under Article 43
Article 43 uses a broad formulation: a violation is any breach of the sanitary-hygienic and sanitary-anti-epidemic rules and norms. This means that liability is not limited to a specific list of actions but covers all cases where a person fails to comply with the rules established in this sphere. Such violations may concern hygienic requirements, anti-epidemic measures, and other sanitary standards. It is also significant that the provision extends to members of very different sectors, from industrial facilities to retail and food establishments. In each specific case it is decisive for the defense to establish which concrete rule was breached and whether a violation existed at all, because an act of a supervisory body may contain inconsistencies that undermine the entire case. Careful reading of the inspection documents at an early stage often changes the picture fundamentally.
The Fine for a First Violation
The law determines the amount of the fine differently for natural and legal persons. A violation of the sanitary-hygienic and sanitary-anti-epidemic rules and norms leads to a fine for a natural person in the amount of fifty lari, and for a legal person or an institution in the amount of one hundred lari. This difference reflects the approach of the legislator, under which organizational forms bear greater responsibility in the sphere of public health. However, the imposition of a fine is not automatic: the case must be heard in the procedure established by law, and the person has the right to contest both the fact of the violation and the amount of the fine. In practice, the hearing stage is where the position of the defense can be presented for the first time in a structured way, and the quality of that presentation directly affects the outcome.
Repeated Violation and the Stricter Fine
The law is particularly strict with respect to repeated violations. The same conduct, committed repeatedly within one year, leads to a fine for a natural person in the amount of two hundred lari, and for a legal person or an institution in the amount of five hundred lari. To establish the sign of repetition, the new violation must be committed within the one-year period. In defense practice, errors are frequent exactly in the calculation of this period: sometimes the previous case is still at the stage of consideration, or its legal force is doubtful. In such circumstances the sign of repetition cannot be established, and the fine must be imposed under the basic rule. Therefore, whenever a new violation is imputed, a full check of the history of previous cases is necessary, including their procedural status and the dates from which the relevant periods are counted.
Who Hears Cases of This Category
Article 221 determines who is authorized to hear cases of this category. The bodies and institutions exercising state sanitary supervision consider administrative offence cases provided for by the first part of Article 43. In the name of the bodies and institutions of state sanitary supervision, the right to hear cases and to impose an administrative penalty belongs to the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of Georgia and his deputies, to the chief state sanitary doctors of the autonomous republics of Abkhazia and Adjara and their deputies, and to the chief state sanitary doctors of cities and districts and their deputies. This means that the competence of the body hearing the case is precisely defined by law, and its excess constitutes a serious argument for the defense. Checking whether the official who signed the decision actually held the relevant powers at that moment is a standard and often productive step in building the defense position.
Defense Opportunities and the Role of a Lawyer
In sanitary cases the defense has broad opportunities. The first stage is the formal verification of the act and the protocol: as a rule, gross inconsistencies appear exactly at the level of documentation. The second stage is the verification of the factual existence of the violation: the accusation that a specific rule was breached must rest on objective evidence. The third direction is the verification of the sign of repetition and the analysis of the legal status of previous cases. In addition, the competence of the hearing body and the correctness of the amount of the fine in comparison with the boundaries established by law must always be checked. Each of these directions requires systematic work with documents, and it is at this stage that the involvement of a lawyer is particularly valuable: he will protect your interests both at the stage of consideration and at the stage of appeal, and will help you avoid mistakes that could cost your business significant sums and reputational losses.