Energy, Fuel & Subsoil Use

Breach of the rules protecting electricity networks above 1000 volts (Art. 94)

The fine is expressed in "minimum amounts of labour remuneration". What is that in lari?

Article 94 does not say. It sets the fine as a multiple of that unit — 10 to 50 for citizens, 50 to 100 for officials — without stating the unit's value in lari anywhere in its text. The figure has to be established from the legislation applicable to your case, so treat any number quoted to you informally with caution until it is checked.

Nothing actually went wrong. Can I still be penalised?

Yes, in principle. The article covers a breach that "resulted or could have resulted" in an interruption of supply, damage to the networks or other damage to the national economy, so a potential consequence is enough. What still has to be shown is that the possibility was real and connected to your particular breach, which is where a defence usually concentrates.

Who counts as an official under this article?

The article uses the two categories — citizens and officials — but does not define them. The definition comes from elsewhere in the law and turns on the facts, so being an employee of an organisation does not automatically place you in the second category. It is worth checking, because the bracket moves from 10 to 50 up to 50 to 100 minimum amounts.

The article refers to rules established by the Cabinet of Ministers. Are those still the rules that apply?

The article refers to that body's rules, and identifying the instrument currently in force for your situation is a separate step that has to be done on the specific case. This matters in practice: a record that never names the particular requirement breached leaves the first element of the offence unproven.

5 min·22 Aug 2026

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.

Updated: 7 Nov 2026