Legal.geLegal.geLegal.ge
SpecialistsCompaniesLibraryBlog
More
AboutPricingContact
LegalTools
Loading accountLog in
AboutSpecialistsCompaniesLibraryBlogPricingContact
LegalTools
Loading accountLog in
Legal.ge

Georgia’s legal platform.

Download on the App StoreLegal.ge for iPhone

Quick Links

  • About Us
  • Specialists
  • Open tasks
  • Services
  • Laws & Codes
  • Firms
  • Organisations
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Contact

Legal

  • Legal library
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Cookie Policy

Contact

contact@legal.ge+995 551 911 961Need a lawyer? Find a specialist

Tbilisi, Georgia

© 2026 Legal.ge. All rights reserved.

Made with in Georgia

Loading…
  1. Services
  2. Administrative & Public Law
  3. Administrative Offences
  4. Pollution, Water & Chemical Safety
  5. Breach of environmental requirements when commissioning a facility (Art. 69⁴)

Services

0 services available

Loading...

Pollution, Water & Chemical Safety

Breach of environmental requirements when commissioning a facility (Art. 69⁴)

What is the fine under Article 69⁴?

The article provides for a fine from GEL 300 to GEL 500. It sets no other type of sanction and does not divide liability between natural and legal persons — the same range applies to every offender.

The record only says environmental requirements were breached. Is that enough?

Article 69⁴ is a blanket provision and does not list the requirements itself — it supplies the sanction and looks to another act for the rule of conduct. So the question to put first is which rule, in which act, you were required to follow; what the record and the decision have to contain is governed by other provisions of the Code, not by this article.

Our facility has been running for years — can this article still be applied?

The wording ties liability to the transfer of the facility into operation rather than to its current running. What has to be checked is whether the fact described in the record belongs to that moment; if it concerns the day-to-day activity of an operating facility, the classification is a separate question.

The fine is small — is it not simpler to pay it?

That decision should follow from reading the record, not from looking at the amount. One inspection often produces findings under several articles, and the factual description in the record can be relied on in later proceedings, so an inaccurate description is worth correcting even when the sum is modest.

5 min·22 Aug 2026

What Article 69⁴ covers

Article 69⁴ of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia penalises a breach of environmental requirements when an economic facility is transferred into operation. That one sentence is the whole of the article, and its brevity is the source of its main practical difficulty: the Code names the moment of transfer into operation without defining which facilities or which procedure that moment covers, and the text alone does not reveal what specific act or omission is prohibited.

The provision ties liability directly to the transfer into operation, not to the facility's later day-to-day running. The first question to test in any case under this article is therefore whether the fact described in the record actually belongs to the moment the article covers. If what was found concerns the current activity of a facility that has been operating for some time, that is a separate question of classification and does not fit mechanically under Article 69⁴.

A case of this kind normally begins with an inspection at the site: the representative of the authorised body draws up the record of the administrative offence and describes in it the circumstance found. The explanation you give while the record is being drawn up becomes part of the case file and keeps working at every later stage, so what is said or signed on site carries the same weight as the appeal filed afterwards. If your position is not yet settled, it is better to record the facts precisely and plainly and to leave the legal assessment for later.

Updated: 14 Oct 2026