How much is the fine for breaching wild animal habitat protection rules?

Part 1 of Article 85 sets a fine of 300 to 500 GEL. If the act was committed in respect of a species on Georgia's "Red List", or inside the established boundaries of one of the protected territories the article lists, Part 2 applies instead, at 1,000 to 1,300 GEL.

No animal was harmed. Can I still be fined?

The first limb of the article protects habitat, breeding areas, survival sites, migration routes and routes of access to water rather than a particular animal. So the question is whether the rules protecting those areas were broken, not only whether an animal came to harm. So the question can arise out of works affecting those areas even where no animal was touched at all.

What does "unauthorised translocation" mean?

The law states in brackets what the term covers: introduction, reintroduction and restocking. The article places it in the same bracket as unauthorised resettlement into a new habitat and hybridisation — that is, Part 1, at 300 to 500 GEL, unless one of the Part 2 circumstances applies.

The work was near a reserve, not inside it. Does Part 2 apply?

The article refers to the established boundaries of the territory, so proximity is not the test — what matters is whether the conduct occurred within those boundaries. The precise position of the boundary, and the documents that fix it, are often the decisive issue in this kind of case.

The fine is a range. Can the minimum be requested?

Both parts set brackets: 300 to 500 GEL and 1,000 to 1,300 GEL. The amount is therefore determined within those limits, and how it was arrived at is part of the case. The article itself does not state which circumstances fix the figure inside the range, so that is argued on the facts.

Breach of the rules on protecting wild animal habitat, and unauthorised translocation (Art. 85)

What Article 85 covers

Article 85 of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences brings together two related groups of conduct. The first is breach of the rules protecting the habitat of wild animals, their breeding areas, survival sites, migration routes and routes of access to water. The second is the unauthorised resettlement of wild animals into a new habitat, unauthorised translocation, and hybridisation. The law itself spells out in brackets what translocation covers: introduction, reintroduction and restocking.

The first group protects a place rather than an individual animal — the space in which animals live, breed, survive, move and reach water. That is why liability under this article can arise even where no animal has been harmed, provided the rules protecting those areas have been broken. The Code does not itself list those rules; they are laid down in separate acts, and Article 85 simply attaches a sanction to their breach. A case therefore usually begins with identifying which rule is said to have been broken and where it is written.

Part 1 — a fine of 300 to 500 GEL

Part 1 attaches to the conduct described above a fine of 300 to 500 GEL. That is a bracket, not a fixed sum: the law sets a floor and a ceiling, and the particular amount is determined within them. The practical consequence is straightforward. A case under this article can be disputed not only on whether a breach occurred, but on why the amount sits at the upper rather than the lower end of the range.

The article names no separate category of person as the addressee of the fine; its text describes conduct. The question therefore arises against whoever carried that conduct out, including where what was being done was a piece of work or an organised activity. That has a practical edge: a case under Article 85 can grow not only out of moving or releasing an animal, but out of works touching the areas and routes the article lists. Hybridisation is named separately in the text and falls in the same bracket as translocation — for sanctioning purposes the law does not distinguish between them.

Part 2 — when the fine rises

Part 2 concerns the same conduct, but where one of two further circumstances is present. The first is that the act was committed in respect of species of wild animals included in Georgia's "Red List". The second is that the act was committed within the established boundaries of any of the following:

a state reserve;
the strict nature protection zone of a national park;
a natural monument;
the core (strict nature protection) zone of a biosphere reserve;
a World Heritage site;
a wetland of international importance.

Where that is so, the fine is 1,000 to 1,300 GEL. Note that the two circumstances are alternatives rather than cumulative requirements: one of them is enough. A "Red List" species brings a case within Part 2 even outside a protected area, and conduct inside one of the listed zones does so even where the species is not on the list. The two brackets — 300 to 500 GEL and 1,000 to 1,300 GEL — are separate, and should not be read as one continuous span.

What these cases turn on in practice

Because Part 2 depends either on the species or on the place, disputes concentrate on those two facts. On the place, the question is whether the conduct fell inside the established boundaries of the territory. The article speaks expressly of established boundaries, so the precise line and the documents that fix it are part of the case rather than background. On the species, the question is identification and confirmation that it appears on the "Red List".

Article 85 sets no appeal deadline and does not name the body that hears the case; those questions are governed by other provisions of the Code and turn on the circumstances of the individual case. The deadline and the addressee therefore have to be checked against the document issued in your case rather than assumed from a general rule. What the article itself yields is the two brackets — 300 to 500 GEL under Part 1 and 1,000 to 1,300 GEL under Part 2 — and the fact that which one applies depends on the species or on the place.

What you can do about it

There are two independent lines of argument here: whether the right part was applied, and whether the amount is justified within the bracket. The questions worth checking are:

which conduct is alleged — breach of protection rules, unauthorised resettlement, translocation, or hybridisation;
which specific rule is said to have been broken, and in which act it is laid down;
whether Part 2 was applied because of the species or because of the location;
whether the established boundary of the territory is documented, and whether the conduct is shown to have occurred within it;
why this particular figure was chosen inside the range.

What to bring

Before the first meeting, gather everything that fixes the place and the date:

the report or other document served on you;
coordinates, a map or other material showing exactly where the conduct took place;
photographs and video, with the date and location they record;
any permit, agreement or correspondence establishing the basis for the work or activity;
any document bearing on identification of the species, if one exists.

Representation does not change the brackets the law sets. What it addresses is whether the correct part was applied, whether the circumstance that moved the case into the 1,000 to 1,300 GEL bracket is actually established, and whether the specific amount chosen within the range is justified.