What Article 61 covers
Article 61 of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia covers two alternative acts: damaging water-management and water-protection structures and equipment, and breaching the rules governing their operation. The two do not depend on one another — establishing either is enough for liability to arise.
The distinction matters. The first act involves physical impact on a structure or a piece of equipment, that is, damage to it. The second concerns a failure to observe the rules under which such an object is to be operated, and it can be established without any visible damage at all. When reading a protocol, the first question is therefore which of the two you are being accused of, and on what evidence.
The article itself does not list which objects count as water-management or water-protection structures and equipment, and it does not define the rules for operating them. Those questions are governed by other legislation, not by this provision. Two elements therefore have to be established separately in a case: that the object belongs to the category the article describes, and that the act attributed to you actually took place.
What the law provides
Article 61 sets out two sanctions:
- damaging such structures and equipment, or breaching the rules for their operation — a fine from 100 to 200 GEL;
- the same act committed repeatedly — a fine from 150 to 250 GEL.
In both cases the law sets a range rather than a single fixed amount, and that has two consequences. First, the specific figure within the range is for the body examining the case to decide, so how the circumstances are described in the file bears directly on the amount. Second, a finding of repetition raises both ends of the range — the lower limit as well as the upper one — so a repeated act starts from a higher floor rather than merely risking a higher ceiling. The article does not itself list the criteria by which a particular figure inside the range is to be chosen, which is one reason the factual description in the protocol carries so much weight. The wording of the article in force was established by the Law of 14 June 2000, No. 380.
Who this affects in practice
Article 61 draws no distinction between categories of person — the text attaches the same range to the act regardless of who committed it. In practice the provision comes up most often in the following situations:
- earthworks, excavation or construction near a canal, a bank reinforcement, a dam or a water-supply structure;
- damage to elements of a drainage or irrigation system during agricultural work;
- departure from the established operating regime by the person responsible for maintaining the object;
- unauthorised interference with the structure itself — connecting to it, blocking it, or removing or relocating a component.
How a case usually unfolds
A case normally begins with circumstances recorded on site and a protocol drawn up there. Article 61 does not itself state what the protocol must contain, which body examines the case, or how the decision is challenged; those matters belong to the general part of the Code and to the powers of the relevant authority rather than to this provision.
Argument tends to concentrate on four questions. Is the object genuinely a water-management or water-protection structure or piece of equipment? Is the accusation one of damage, or of breaching the operating rules? Is there a link between your conduct and the condition found, or did the damage predate the works? And is repetition established, given that the higher range depends on it? Each of these is a factual question, and each is answered by documents and site evidence rather than by the conclusion recorded in the protocol.
What you can do, and where a lawyer changes the outcome
Because the sanction is a range, a defence works on two levels. The first is the composition of the offence: if the classification of the object, the act itself, or the causal link is not made out, the question of an amount is never reached. The second is where within the range the figure should sit, and, separately, whether there is any record establishing repetition — without one, applying the higher range is open to challenge.
On both levels the work is concrete: analysing how the protocol is worded and identifying which of the two alternatives has been chosen; assembling technical documentation and photographs showing the condition of the object before the works began; clarifying who was responsible for operating and maintaining it; and, where the facts support it, preparing a challenge to the decision. Outcomes cannot be predicted in advance, but each of these questions has to be resolved on evidence.
What to prepare
Collect the material that describes the object, the act and the timing:
- the administrative offence protocol and the decision, if one has already been issued;
- photographs and video from before the works, during them and after completion;
- permits, the design documentation, the works log and the contract with the contractor;
- technical documentation for the object and its operating rules, where you hold them;
- documents showing who owns the object and who is responsible for maintaining it;
- any earlier reports or decisions on which an allegation of repetition might rest.