Suspension of Production Process in Food Establishments: Registration, Safety, and Appeal

On 9 October 2026, the National Food Agency announced that three unregistered food establishments were identified during an unscheduled inspection in Tbilisi. According to the Agency and Imedi, violations of hygiene and infrastructure were recorded, business operators were fined, and their production process was suspended until the non-compliances were eliminated. The notice does not indicate any confirmed cases of consumer poisoning.

Registration and Food Safety

Article 13 of the Food Safety Code requires the registration of relevant activities in the Register of Economic Activities and prohibits operation without registration. Registration does not replace compliance with hygiene requirements. The Agency's authority for state control and inspection mechanism are defined by Articles 22 and 26 of the Code.

Suspension Based on Risk and Specific Violation

Article 65 of the Code establishes liability and suspension for unregistered activities. Article 66, Part 3 refers to non-compliance that poses a high risk to life and health and cannot be eliminated without temporary suspension of the process. In this case, the law provides for the suspension of a specific production process until the non-compliance is eliminated.

Different grounds are accompanied by different sanctions. Therefore, from the press release alone, we cannot determine which specific part served as the basis for the amount imposed on each business operator. An inspection act, a description of the violation, the operator's legal status, and the fine resolution are required. The critical and non-critical violations mentioned by the Agency must be distinguished from each other.

Reinstatement and Review of Decision

The suspension of a process does not mean a permanent ban on activity. For work to resume, it is important to eliminate all relevant grounds: for example, both registration and identified hygiene problems. A photo of cleaning alone cannot replace an inspection by the authorised body. The operator must request written instructions and retain proof of compliance.

Article 53 of the General Administrative Code concerns the justification of a written administrative act. The specific appeal procedure must be checked according to the relevant act and special rule. Filing a complaint should not be considered an automatic right to resume operations. This notice does not independently establish either the absence of a violation or the final legality of the sanction.

The direct basis for liability for Georgian establishments is Georgian legislation. Mentioning HACCP or other international practices does not automatically make a foreign country's regulation a sanction applicable in Georgia. The conclusion at this stage is limited: the agency announces a temporary suspension, while assessing the compliance of each measure requires individual documents.

Related explanation: Wine Quality Control and Certification.

Verification Date

Legislation verified as of 9 October 2026.

This article is for informational purposes, based on the public sources cited, and does not constitute individual legal advice.