The decision does not say which part of Article 60 I breached. Does that matter?

It matters a great deal, because the article carries three separate brackets: 200 to 400 lari, 350 to 550 lari, and 400 to 800 lari for repeat commission. Without a stated part there is no way to test whether the amount imposed corresponds to the act described. Establishing which part is being applied is therefore the first thing to clarify, with the authority or with a lawyer.

Can the fine be less than 200 lari?

Article 60 sets 200 lari as the floor of the Part 1 bracket and provides no warning and no lesser sanction anywhere in the article. So a figure below the floor is not available by arguing about amount. If a lower outcome is the goal, what has to be contested is the basis of liability itself, not the sum.

Does the article apply differently to a company than to an individual?

The text of Article 60 states one set of amounts and does not draw separate scales for different categories of person. The same three brackets appear whoever is being fined. What does change with an organisation is the evidence — permits, contracts and internal records usually carry more of the argument than testimony does.

No harm came to the water body. Is that a defence?

Not on its own. The wording of Article 60 does not list damage among the elements of the offence, so the absence of damage does not remove liability. It can still be argued as a factor bearing on where within the applicable bracket the fine should be set.

Article 60 says nothing about appeals. Where do the deadlines come from?

Article 60 governs only the sanction. The body that hears the case, the route of challenge and the time limit all come from other provisions of the Code and have to be identified for your specific decision. Keep the document together with everything showing when it reached you, and seek advice without delay so that the applicable period can be identified against your own decision.

Breach of the water use rules (Art. 60)

What Article 60 actually covers

Article 60 of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences deals with breaches of the water use rules. It is not one uniform offence: the article describes several independent acts and attaches its own penalty to each. Part 1 prohibits a breach of the requirements of general water use. Part 4 prohibits the unlawful use of surface water bodies of special scientific and aesthetic significance. If a record has already been drawn up against you, or a decision has already been issued, the first thing to establish is which part the qualification actually rests on, because both the size of the fine and the entire shape of the defence follow from that single question.

Liability under this article can fall equally on an individual who uses a water body and on a business whose operations consume water or touch a water body. One detail matters a great deal in practice: the wording of Article 60 does not name a consequence — the occurrence of damage — as a separate element. The offence is built on the breach of the rule itself, which means the argument "no harm was caused" does not by itself close the case, although it can still bear on where within the bracket the penalty is set.

The exact amounts the article sets

Article 60 provides three distinct fine brackets. They are not one long continuous scale — each range belongs strictly to its own part:

breach of the requirements of general water use (Part 1) — a fine of 200 to 400 lari;
unlawful use of surface water bodies of special scientific and aesthetic significance (Part 4) — a fine of 350 to 550 lari;
the acts under Parts 1 and 4 committed repeatedly (Part 5) — a fine of 400 to 800 lari.

Parts 2 and 3 of Article 60 were repealed by Law No. 453 of 25 March 2013 and are no longer in force. If your record or decision cites one of them, that alone puts the act in question. Note one further point: in none of the cases listed does the article provide an alternative form of penalty such as a warning. The sanction is always a fine, and only its amount moves within the relevant bracket.

Repeat commission and Part 5

Part 5 does not describe a new, free-standing act. It describes the same two acts — those under Parts 1 and 4 — committed repeatedly. That means the 400 to 800 lari bracket can be applied only if it is established that an earlier instance exists and that it concerned one of those two parts. In practice this is the point at which defects surface most often: the earlier case may have been qualified under a different article or a different part, or it may never have taken legal effect at all. Checking it goes directly to the sum you are being asked to pay, not merely to the paperwork.

How the case unfolds in practice

An administrative offence case begins when an authorised person draws up a record describing the act, its time and place, and the part under which it is qualified. The next stage is the decision by which the penalty is imposed. Precision is needed here: Article 60 itself sets only the amounts of the sanction. It does not say which body hears the case, nor by what procedure or within what period the act may be challenged. Those questions are governed by other provisions of the Code and have to be checked separately on your particular case, because that is where the applicable period and the correct addressee come from. For that reason, read the document served on you immediately and keep everything that evidences the date of service.

Where a lawyer changes the outcome

When a penalty is expressed as a range, the dispute runs along two independent lines: whether the qualification is correct at all, and whether the particular figure chosen within the bracket is justified. A lawyer works on both at once:

tests whether your conduct genuinely falls within the elements of Part 1 or of Part 4;
examines separately the specific feature Part 4 requires — the special scientific and aesthetic significance of the water body — and whether anything in the file actually establishes it;
contests repeat commission where no earlier instance exists or where it concerned a different part;
works on defects in the record — a vague description of the act, imprecise identification of the place or the date;
builds the argument for moving the penalty towards the lower end of the bracket where the qualification is not in dispute.

What to bring to the consultation

A consultation moves faster and yields a firmer answer if you gather the material in advance:

a full copy of the record and of the decision, showing the date of service;
any permit, contract or other document relating to your use of the water;
material fixing the place and the date — photographs, video, coordinates;
any earlier decision, if repeat commission is alleged in the case;
correspondence with the authority, your written explanation, and witness details.

With that material in hand it becomes possible to say at the outset whether this is a dispute about qualification or a dispute about amount. That answer determines every step that follows, and it determines what can realistically be achieved in your particular case rather than in the abstract.