How much is the fine under this article?

Article 85¹ provides a fine of 150 to 200 lari. It is a range: the lower limit is 150 lari and the upper limit is 200 lari, with the amount set within those limits according to the case. No other type of sanction is written into the article.

A rule was broken, but nothing was harmed. Does the article still apply?

The wording ties the penalty to a breach that caused harm to the animal world and to its habitat. The harm, and its connection to the breach, is therefore a question the case has to address in its own right. If the decision is silent on it, that is a point worth pressing for clarification on.

The product was applied exactly as the label directed. Does that protect me?

Not automatically, but it is a material fact. The article refers to the norms for use and to the rules on transport, storage and use, so a document showing what you applied and how belongs in the file. Keep the label, the instructions and the purchase paperwork rather than relying on describing them.

A contractor did the spraying. Who is answerable?

The text does not define the responsible person separately, so nothing follows automatically from the contracting arrangement — attribution depends on the facts of the particular case. That is exactly why the contract, the instruction or the work plan should exist in writing and be put into the file.

How quickly do I need to act?

As soon as possible. Article 85¹ sets no appeal period and no rule for counting one — that is a matter for other provisions of the Code and for the documents in your file. Beyond that, harm is part of the offence under this article, and the physical situation relevant to it changes over time, so recording the site early is worth doing regardless of the appeal timetable.

Breach of the rules on using chemicals, causing harm to wildlife (Art. 85¹)

What Article 85¹ covers

Article 85¹ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences deals with a breach of the norms for using chemical substances in the environment — including plant-protection chemicals and chemicals used to fertilise soil — and of the rules on transporting, storing and using those substances, where the breach has caused harm to the animal world and to its habitat. The article does not penalise the use of a chemical as such. It penalises departing from the established norms and rules in a case where a particular consequence followed.

This is an old provision, and it reached its present wording in stages, from Decree No. 408 of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Georgian SSR of 16 October 1985 through to Law of Georgia No. 759 of 12 June 1997. Its construction has nevertheless stayed clear and worth holding on to: a breach, plus harm that followed from it.

Which rules are meant

The text distinguishes two groups and attaches the same penalty to both:

the norms for using chemical substances in the environment — in what quantity, where and under what conditions their use is permitted;
the rules on transporting, storing and using those substances — how they are to be moved, kept and applied.

The article expressly extends this to plant-protection chemicals and to chemicals used for fertilising soil. It does not, however, list the norms and rules themselves; it refers to them. That makes the first question in any case a concrete one: which norm or rule is said to have been broken, and where does it come from? If the case file does not answer that, the substance of the allegation stays vague, and it becomes correspondingly harder for you to answer it on the merits.

Harm as part of the offence

Article 85¹ differs from several neighbouring provisions in naming a consequence outright: the breach must have caused harm to the animal world and to its habitat. Those two elements — the breach and the harm — are tied together in the wording. So the case has to establish not only whether a rule was broken, but also what harm occurred and how it connects to the breach.

The practical consequence for you is that there is more than one thing to talk about. One line of argument concerns the content of the rule said to have been broken. The other concerns what actually establishes the harm and its origin, which in this area is rarely obvious: conditions on a site change with the season and the weather, and the further from the events the assessment is made, the harder the link becomes to demonstrate either way. Both questions should be visible in the decision rather than assumed by it.

The penalty the law provides

The article provides one sanction: the conduct described, where it has caused harm to the animal world and to its habitat, carries a fine of 150 to 200 lari. That is a range and not a fixed sum — the lower limit is 150 lari, the upper limit 200 lari, and the distance between them is 50 lari. The particular amount is set within those limits.

No other type of sanction appears in the text, and there is no separately aggravated penalty for repetition. The article also says nothing about compensating the harm; that is not what it regulates. If the decision served on you states an amount outside the 150-to-200-lari range, check whether the case has really been classified under this article, and whether another article has been brought in alongside it.

How the case unfolds in practice

A case of this kind normally begins with a protocol and ends with a decision. What those two documents say is what matters most to you. When you read them, check the following:

whether the particular norm or rule said to have been broken is identified;
whether the conduct is described with a time and a place;
what the harm to the animal world and its habitat consisted of, and what establishes it;
whether the amount imposed falls within the range of 150 to 200 lari.

Article 85¹ says nothing about when or where a decision may be challenged, or how any such period is counted. It provides the elements of the offence — the breach, and harm to the animal world and its habitat — and the fine of 150 to 200 lari, and no more. Those questions are governed by other provisions of the Code and have to be established on your own file, so read the decision as soon as it reaches you.

What a lawyer changes, and what to bring

A lawyer cannot promise you an outcome, but can control the part of the case that is within your reach: reading the classification correctly, filing the complaint in time, putting a consistent position together, and submitting evidence while it can still be considered. In cases under this article the line of defence usually runs through two questions — whether a breach of a specific norm has been established, and whether the harm relied on has been shown to follow from that breach.

For a consultation, bring the originals or photographs of the protocol and the decision; a record of when the document was served on you; the paperwork for the product used — label, instructions, delivery notes, storage records; a treatment log or work plan if you keep one; dated photographs and video of the site; and the contact details of anyone who was present at or took part in the work.