What Article 78 actually penalises
Gas and dust capture equipment is the technical stage that traps dust and harmful gases before they are released into the ambient air. Article 78 of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia attaches liability to three distinct states of that equipment: a breach of the rules for operating it and/or the equipment being out of order, the equipment not being used at all, and the equipment not being there in the first place. Each of the three sits in its own part of the article and carries its own fine range. That is why the financial outcome of your case depends above all on which of the three parts the authority applies to the fact recorded during the inspection.
The article does not split the fine between natural and legal persons — the same range applies to every offender who is required to have this equipment and to keep it running properly. In practice liability lands on whoever operates the facility and to whom the emission source is attached. Because the law sets ranges rather than one fixed sum, the specific amount is always fixed separately between those limits, and the article does not regulate that choice any further.
The fines the article sets
Article 78 provides for the following sanctions:
- breach of the rules for operating gas and dust capture equipment and/or that equipment being out of order (part 1) — a fine from GEL 1,000 to GEL 10,000;
- failure to use gas and dust capture equipment (part 3) — a fine from GEL 5,000 to GEL 15,000;
- absence of gas and dust capture equipment (part 5) — a fine from GEL 10,000 to GEL 20,000.
In each part the distance between the lower and the upper limit is considerable. That means selecting the amount is itself a legal question rather than automatic arithmetic. Article 78 itself names no criterion for choosing a particular figure within those limits — that follows from other provisions of the Code and from the circumstances of the case.
Repeat commission
Parts 2, 4 and 6 all state the same rule: where the corresponding act is committed repeatedly, the maximum amount of the fine set by that same part is doubled. Repetition therefore does not change what the offence is; what it changes is the ceiling within which the fine is fixed, and it moves that ceiling by a factor of two.
What matters, consequently, is which part the repetition attaches to: part 2 concerns the act under part 1, part 4 the act under part 3, and part 6 the act under part 5. How repetition is established is not set out in Article 78 itself and follows from other provisions of the Code. In practice earlier findings under different parts of Article 78 are frequently conflated — past faulty equipment and present non-use, for example. Those are two different parts, and adding them together does not produce repetition.
How a case unfolds
A case normally begins with an inspection at the site. The representative of the authorised body draws up a record of the administrative offence describing the fact found: the equipment was absent, or it was installed but not running, or it was running in breach of the operating rules. That description is the core on which the whole dispute is later built, including the central question of which part applies and therefore which range is triggered.
This is why the explanation you give while the record is being drawn up matters at least as much as the appeal you file afterwards. If the equipment was temporarily switched off at the moment of the inspection for a technological or maintenance reason, that circumstance has to be recorded on the same day and supported by documents. Refusing to sign, or writing a general note saying that you disagree, helps very little later, because it says nothing about what was in fact happening.
Where a lawyer changes the outcome
- Classification — arguing that the fact belongs under part 1 rather than part 3 or part 5, which moves the applicable range directly;
- Amount — building the case for a figure at the lower end of the range and testing whether the decision reasons its choice at all;
- Repetition — which part of the article the earlier finding was recorded under, and whether it matches the part now being applied;
- Defects in the record — who drew it up, under what authority, following what procedure, and whether the factual description is complete;
- Appeal — challenging the decision in the manner and within the time limit laid down by the Code.
A lawyer does not promise you an outcome and should not. What genuinely changes is the legal frame of the case: the correctly chosen part, an amount that is properly argued within its range, and evidence filed while it still exists.
What to prepare before the first consultation
- copies of the offence record and of the decision, together with proof of the date they were served on you;
- technical documentation for the gas and dust capture equipment, including proof of installation and of its acceptance into operation;
- maintenance, repair and measurement logs covering the period of the inspection;
- photographs and video taken on the day of the inspection, plus written explanations from the staff who were present;
- earlier decisions, if a violation has already been recorded at the same site in the past.
Gather this material as soon as possible after the inspection. Technical logs and photographs are the first things to disappear, and the manner and period for challenging a decision are not set by Article 78 itself — they come from other provisions of the Code and have to be checked separately.