Breach of the norms and rules for using gas (Art. 95)

I am a household gas customer — can I be fined under Article 95?

The sanctioning clause of Article 95 lists only the heads of enterprises, associations, institutions and organisations, their deputies, chief power engineers (chief mechanics), and the heads of workshops and services. Those are the people on whom a warning or a fine under this article is imposed. If you hold none of those posts, the first thing to check is on what basis the article was applied to you at all.

Can the case end with a warning instead of a fine?

Yes. The article expressly offers a warning as an alternative to the fine, and it does not treat it as an exceptional outcome. Which of the two is chosen depends on the circumstances of the case, so evidence that the defect was rectified and that no consequences followed is worth filing in writing and early.

How much is the fine in lari?

Article 95 does not express the fine in lari. It sets a range of six to ten minimum amounts of labour remuneration. The figure that appears in your decision therefore has to be derived from that unit, and checking how it was calculated is one of the first useful steps.

Our installation was inspected but nothing was damaged — does that matter?

Article 95 is built around the norms and rules of gas use themselves, and the conduct it lists — operating without permission, exceeding the approved norms, running without metering, missing or faulty controls — is described without reference to any resulting damage. That does not make the absence of consequences irrelevant to the choice between a warning and a fine, or to where within the range a fine is set, but it is not a defence to the qualification itself.

5 min·22 Aug 2026

What Article 95 covers and who it applies to

Article 95 of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences deals with breaches of the norms and rules for using gas as fuel and as raw material. It is not a household provision. The sanctioning clause names the people who carry the liability quite precisely: the heads of enterprises, associations, institutions and organisations, their deputies, chief power engineers (chief mechanics), and the heads of workshops and services. Liability under this article therefore attaches to a post a person holds, rather than to the gas-consuming organisation in the abstract.

That drafting choice matters more in practice than it looks. The decisive question in a real case is often not whether something was wrong at the site, but whose duty the particular act or omission was — which is why internal orders, job descriptions and the documented allocation of responsibilities frequently do more work here than any technical argument about the installation.

The conduct the article lists

Article 95 does not use an open formula. It enumerates the situations it punishes, and each of them is a separate allegation:

releasing gas into gas-consuming installations without the permission of the state gas supervision bodies;
exceeding the allocated gas funds, or failing to observe the established regime of gas consumption;
consuming gas on gas-consuming installations without approved specific consumption norms, or exceeding those specific norms;
operating gas-consuming installations without accounting for the gas consumed, or for the heat energy and the products generated by using gas;
the absence or malfunction of the automatic controls for gas combustion processes provided for in the installation's design, of heat-engineering control instruments, or of heat-utilisation equipment — the devices that secure the rational and efficient use of gas;
failure to prepare the reserve heat facility provided for the gas-using enterprise, association, institution or organisation for operation, or failure to prepare the gas-consuming installations to run on the prescribed type of reserve fuel.

The sanction: a warning or a fine

The article provides two outcomes: a warning, or a fine of six to ten minimum amounts of labour remuneration. Two practical points follow. First, the warning is not a courtesy — the article puts it on an equal footing with the fine, so material showing that the defect was corrected, that consumption stayed within the approved limits, or that no consequences followed is worth assembling early rather than after the decision is issued. Second, the article expresses the fine in units of minimum labour remuneration and does not itself state any sum in lari. The amount written into your decision has to follow from that unit, which makes the arithmetic in the decision something to verify rather than to accept on sight.

Updated: 7 Nov 2026

Related Services

Rendering soil and water unfit during subsoil use in high-mountain regions (Art. 51⁴)Breach of subsoil protection requirements (Art. 56)Breach of the rules on carrying out geological study of subsoil (Art. 57)Subsoil use without a licence (Art. 57¹)Breach of the safety rules for subsoil use (Art. 57²)Import and sale of tetraethyl lead or adulterated liquefied gas (Art. 91²)Breach of quality standards for motor petrol and diesel fuel (Art. 91³)Breach of the rules protecting electricity networks above 1000 volts (Art. 94)Theft of electricity or natural gas and unmetered consumption (Art. 96¹)Breach of the rules on selling, transporting and storing petroleum products (Art. 155¹)