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.

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

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.

How a case unfolds in practice

An administrative-offence case usually begins with a protocol being drawn up and ends with a decision. What those two documents say matters more to you than almost anything else, because their content defines what you have to answer and fixes the boundaries of the dispute.

When you read them, look for whether the specific article is cited; whether the conduct is described with a time and a place; whether the rule said to have been broken is actually named; and whether the amount imposed sits inside the range the article sets. Article 85⁵ sets no deadline for challenging the decision and names no body to address; those questions are governed by other provisions of the Code and by the circumstances of the case, so both have to be checked against the document issued in your case rather than assumed from a general rule.

Why the rules exist

Article 85⁵ is unusual in naming the interests it protects: the sanitary and epidemiological situation, the health and life of the population, the prevention of disease in agricultural and other domestic animals, the natural environment, and economic activity. That list is not decoration. It explains why regulating animal numbers is a governed procedure rather than a free-hand activity, and why one operation can sit under epidemiological, agricultural and environmental requirements at once.

The practical consequence is this: the text does not name resulting damage as a separate condition. What it makes punishable is the breach of the rules themselves. So the argument that nobody was harmed does not, on its own, close the case. That does not make such circumstances irrelevant — the penalty is expressed as a range, and where a figure falls inside that range turns on the circumstances of the case, so they are still worth recording and putting forward.

What you can do, and where a lawyer changes things

A lawyer cannot promise you an outcome. What a lawyer can do is control the part of the case that is within your side's reach: reading the classification correctly, filing the challenge in time, setting out a consistent position, and putting the evidence in while it can still be considered. Because the article is a blanket provision, the line of defence very often runs through two points — whether a breach of a specific rule has been established at all, and whether it has been tied to you.

Before a consultation, gather the originals or photographs of the protocol and the decision; proof of when the document was served on you; any permit, assignment or written instruction you were acting under; photographs, video and correspondence; and the contact details of the people who were present at the measure or took part in it.