Administrative Liability in the Sanitary Sphere
Public health protection is a priority function of the state, and the legislation establishes sanitary-hygienic and sanitary-anti-epidemic rules and norms for this purpose. 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 boundaries of the fines and who is authorized to hear the case — exactly the questions explained on this page, while a conclusion on a specific case requires consultation with a lawyer.
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. Liability is thus not limited to a specific list of actions but covers all cases where a person fails to comply with the rules of this sphere — hygienic requirements, anti-epidemic measures and other sanitary standards. The provision extends to 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.
Fines for a First and a Repeated Violation
The law sets 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 of fifty lari for a natural person and one hundred lari for a legal person or an institution. This difference reflects the legislator's approach, under which organizational forms bear greater responsibility for 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. The hearing stage is where the defense position is first presented in a structured way, and its quality directly affects the outcome.
The same conduct, committed repeatedly within one year, leads to a fine of two hundred lari for a natural person and five hundred lari for a legal person or an institution. The sign of repetition requires the new violation to fall within the one-year period, and in defense practice errors are frequent exactly in its calculation: sometimes the previous case is still under consideration, or its legal force is doubtful, in which case repetition cannot be established and the basic rule applies. Therefore, whenever a new violation is imputed, a full check of the history of previous cases is necessary.