What Article 152⁵ penalises
Cutting, grinding, sawing and crushing material on a construction site, during demolition or in an industrial yard is one of the most intense sources of airborne dust. Article 152⁵ of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia prohibits the processing of dust-generating material without the wet method where that processing fails to ensure dust suppression. The article itself lists the typical operations — cutting, grinding, sawing, crushing — and leaves the list open with the words "and other", so a comparable operation falls within its scope as well.
Two elements of the offence have to be established together: the material must be dust-generating, and the processing must be carried out in a way that does not ensure dust suppression. In practice the second element is the contested one. On the wording of the article, the absence of the wet method is not enough on its own: what it penalises is processing "where that processing fails to ensure dust suppression". Those are two different assertions, and treating them as one is among the most common lines of defence.
The offence is normally recorded on site: the representative of the authorised body observes the operation in progress, draws up the record of the administrative offence and describes what material was being processed and how. Because the act itself is short-lived, the evidence disappears quickly — the area is cleaned, equipment is moved, the shift changes. Your own record therefore has to be made the same day: photographs, video, and a short written explanation of what was being used to suppress dust and who was carrying out the work.
The fines the article sets
Article 152⁵ splits the fine by the type of person and sets fixed sums:
- natural person — GEL 2,500 (part 1);
- legal person — GEL 5,000 (part 1);
- natural person, repeat commission — GEL 5,000 (part 2);
- legal person, repeat commission — GEL 10,000 (part 2).
There is no range here — the amount is fixed. Arguing about the size of the fine is therefore pointless, and only two questions remain in dispute: whether the elements of the offence are made out, and whether the offender is a natural or a legal person. The second question is worth a factor of two, which makes the identity entered in the record a matter to check carefully rather than a technical detail.
Repeat commission
Part 2 attaches an increased fine to committing the same act repeatedly: GEL 5,000 for a natural person and GEL 10,000 for a legal person. Part 2 speaks of "the same act" committed repeatedly, that is, the act under this same article; a past violation recorded under a different article is not what its text refers to. How repetition is established is not set out in Article 152⁵ itself and follows from other provisions of the Code.
If the fine is not paid on time
The article carries a note that regulates non-payment directly. If the fine imposed is not paid within the period defined by Article 290(1) of the Code, a penalty charge is imposed on the offender in the amount of the fine imposed for the offence committed under the relevant part. The practical effect is straightforward: a legal person fined GEL 5,000 is charged a further GEL 5,000, so the sum payable doubles.
The clock then keeps running. If the fine and the penalty charge remain unpaid within 30 days of the penalty being charged, a measure securing payment of the fine and the penalty is applied to the offender in the manner established by Georgian legislation. So if you intend to challenge the decision, track the payment deadlines separately: the note ties the penalty charge to the period set by Article 290(1) of the Code, and what effect a challenge has on that period is governed by other provisions of the Code.
Where a lawyer changes the outcome
- Elements — whether the material was in fact dust-generating and whether the absence of dust suppression was established rather than assumed;
- Identity of the offender — whether liability falls on a natural or a legal person, which moves the amount by a factor of two;
- Repetition — which article the earlier finding was recorded under, and whether it concerns the act covered by Article 152⁵ itself;
- Completeness of the record — whether the specific operation, the time, the place and the basis for finding no dust suppression are described;
- Deadlines — controlling the payment period so that a penalty charge and an enforcement measure are not added on top;
- Appeal — challenging the decision in the manner and within the time limit laid down by the Code.
What to prepare before the first consultation
- copies of the offence record and of the decision, with the date they were served;
- photographs and video taken at the work area on the day of the inspection;
- documents evidencing dust suppression measures — purchase, installation and use records for water supply, spraying or other systems;
- a description of the work: what material was being processed, by what operation, and on whose instruction;
- contracts with the contractor or subcontractor, if another company was carrying out the work.
The last item matters more than it looks. Where a subcontractor performs the work, the question of who bears liability is usually resolved by the contract together with evidence of who actually controlled the site. It is also worth checking the current text of the provision before relying on any commentary you find online: the article was last amended by the law of 17 December 2025, and older explanations may describe figures that no longer apply.