Breach of the rules on regulating wild animal numbers (Art. 85⁵)

Is the fine a fixed amount?

No. Article 85⁵ provides for a fine of 200 to 300 lari, which is a range. The floor is 200 lari and the ceiling is 300 lari. The precise figure is set within those limits on the facts of the case.

The decision cites the article but does not say which rule I broke. Does that matter?

It matters practically. Article 85⁵ attaches the penalty to a breach of "the rules" without listing them. Until you know which rule is said to have been broken, you cannot frame an answer on the merits. Pinning that down is the first step in the case.

Can the decision be challenged?

A decision in an administrative-offence case is open to challenge under the general rules of the Code; Article 85⁵ sets no separate procedure of its own, and names neither a deadline nor a reviewing body. Both therefore have to be established from the document issued in your case rather than assumed from a general rule.

I am a foreign national working here. Does the article apply to me differently?

The text of Article 85⁵ draws no distinction by nationality or residence — it describes the conduct and the fine, nothing more. What does change in practice is the handling: service of documents and translation are harder to manage from abroad, so arrange representation early and check the period and the addressee named in the document issued in your case.

How quickly do I need to act?

Article 85⁵ sets no time limit of its own and says nothing about how one is counted; those questions are governed by other provisions of the Code, so the answer has to be read from the document issued in your case. Practically, it is worth reading that document as soon as it arrives and checking what it records — the article relied on, the dates, and whether the amount imposed sits inside the 200 to 300 lari band.

5 min·22 Aug 2026

What Article 85⁵ actually covers

Article 85⁵ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences deals with a breach of the rules on regulating the numbers of wild animals. The article itself names the purposes for which such regulation is carried out: sanitary and epidemiological purposes, protection of the health and life of the population, prevention of disease in agricultural and other domestic animals, and the avoidance of damage to the natural environment and to economic activity. Liability therefore does not attach to carrying out the measure as such — it attaches to breaching the rules under which the measure must be carried out.

The article does not list those rules. It refers to them. That makes the first question in any case a very concrete one: which rule is said to have been broken, and where does it come from? If the case file does not make that clear, the substance of the allegation stays vague, and it becomes correspondingly harder for you to answer it on the merits. The article carries a single legislative reference in its footer: Law of Georgia No. 759 of 12 June 1997.

Who can be caught by it

The text does not define the responsible person separately. It describes conduct, not a job title or a category of business. In practice this makes attribution the decisive issue — who the breach is charged to, and on what basis. The question most often arises in relation to the following people:

the person who physically carried out the population-regulation measure;
the person who organised or supervised it;
the person to whom the particular rule applied directly;
the person who took part in the measure as an executant.

This list is an orientation, not a statutory classification. Article 85⁵ contains no such breakdown, so attribution always depends on the facts of the individual case and on what the file actually records.

The sanction the law provides

Article 85⁵ provides a single penalty: breaching the rules on regulating the numbers of wild animals entails a fine of 200 to 300 lari. That is a range, not a fixed sum. The floor is 200 lari, the ceiling is 300 lari, and the distance between the two is 100 lari. The exact amount is set within those limits.

No other type of penalty appears in the text of the article, and no separate, heavier sanction for a repeat offence is written into it either. So if the decision you have received shows a figure outside the 200 to 300 lari band, or a penalty of a different kind altogether, check carefully whether the case has really been classified under this article, or whether another article has been brought in alongside it.

Updated: 13 Nov 2026

Related Services

Breach of the licence conditions for use of fir cones and CITES plants (Art. 66²)Breach of the rules on restoring natural resources in a protected area (Art. 67¹)Polluting or damaging the land of a protected area (Art. 71¹)Breach of the rules on protecting wild animal habitat, and unauthorised translocation (Art. 85)Breach of the rules on using chemicals, causing harm to wildlife (Art. 85¹)Breach of the rules and licence for contained use of genetically modified organisms (Art. 87¹)Breach of the rules on labelling genetically modified organisms (Art. 87³)Destroying the boundary markers of a protected area (Art. 55⁴)Illegal trade in and transport of CITES species (Art. 66³)Breach of the conditions of a CITES permit (Art. 66⁴)Breach of the rules on removing a Red List protected plant from the wild (Art. 66⁵)Breach of the transport safety rules for genetically modified organisms (Art. 87²)