What Article 94 prohibits
Article 94 of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences concerns a breach of the rules protecting electricity networks with a voltage above 1000 volts. The article does not list those rules — it points to the rules which, in its own wording, were established by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Georgia. That is a practical detail, not a formality: a charge cannot stand up unless it identifies which requirement of which rule was breached.
Pay separate attention to the threshold itself. The article deals specifically with networks above 1000 volts, and that is part of the offence, not a descriptive detail. If the network the work was carried out near does not exceed that voltage, Article 94 is no longer an apt basis and the qualification becomes contestable. Clarify the object's technical characteristic early and compare it with the record.
Cases of this kind commonly arise out of work in a protective strip, earthworks or construction near lines, the movement of machinery, or a structure or planting placed where that is restricted. Liability can fall on a citizen and on an official alike — the article names both categories and attaches a different sanction to each.
The three elements of the offence
The wording of the article ties liability to three elements existing at the same time. Each is verified separately and each can be contested separately:
- an established rule protecting networks above 1000 volts applies to your situation;
- that rule was breached — and the record states which particular requirement;
- the breach resulted, or could have resulted, in one of the listed consequences: an interruption in the supply of electricity to consumers, damage to the electricity networks, or other damage to the national economy.
Without the third element the offence is not made out. If the record describes only the fact of a breach and says nothing about a consequence — neither one that occurred nor one that could have — that is a weak point in the qualification.
The sanction: a warning or a fine
Article 94 distinguishes two categories of person and sets two possible penalties for each of them:
- citizens — a warning, or a fine of from 10 to 50 minimum amounts of labour remuneration;
- officials — a warning, or a fine of from 50 to 100 minimum amounts of labour remuneration.
Two things deserve attention. First, the warning is a real alternative written into the law for both categories — a fine is not automatic. Second, the article expresses the fine not in lari but as a multiple of the minimum amount of labour remuneration, and it does not state the value of that unit in lari anywhere in its text. The actual sum therefore cannot be read straight off the article: it has to be established from the legislation applicable to your case rather than assumed.
Article 94 regulates nothing beyond that. It does not say which body hears the case, by what route or within what period the act may be challenged, or on what criteria the choice between a warning and a fine is made. Those questions follow from other provisions of the Code and must be checked on your case, so keep the document evidencing the date of service.
"Could have resulted" — the article's most contestable phrase
Article 94 describes the consequence in the alternative: it "resulted or could have resulted". The text therefore covers a potential consequence as well as one that occurred, so the argument that "no supply was interrupted and no network was damaged" does not by itself close the case. At the same time, the possibility is not simply assumed: it still has to be substantiated and tied to the specific breach you are charged with. This is exactly where these cases tend to come apart — a general phrase about danger, with no concrete technical explanation behind it, is a thin basis for a penalty.
Where a lawyer changes the outcome
In cases under this article the defence rests on technical detail, so the work is directed at specific elements:
- establishing which rule, and which requirement within it, the charge is built on;
- testing whether the consequence, or a genuine possibility of it, has been substantiated;
- contesting the status of official where wrongly attributed — this changes the bracket directly;
- arguing for a warning instead of a fine where there is a basis;
- working towards the lower end of the bracket once liability is no longer in dispute.
The question of status deserves separate mention. The article attaches a different sanction to each category but does not define who counts as an official. That definition comes from other provisions and must be checked against the facts of your case.
What to bring to the consultation
The more technical the case, the more the documents decide. Gather:
- a full copy of the record and of the decision, with the date of service;
- documentation for the work — permits, project, contracts, any agreement with the network owner;
- photographs and video of the site, showing distances to the line or pylon;
- safety briefing records, orders or job descriptions, if status is in dispute;
- correspondence with the authority and your written explanation.
With that material it becomes possible to judge which element the dispute should run on: the voltage threshold, the identification of the rule, the substantiation of the consequence, or status. That choice decides whether the argument is about the form of the penalty or about liability itself.