---
title: "Missing, unused or faulty gas and dust capture equipment (Art. 78)"
url: "https://legal.ge/en/service/administrative-and-public-law-en/missing-unused-or-faulty-gas-and-dust-capture-equipment-art-78-en"
field: "Administrative & Public Law"
description: "Article 78: faulty, unused or missing gas and dust capture equipment. A fine of GEL 1,000 to 10,000 under part 1; parts 3 and 5 are higher. Legal.ge."
updated: "2026-10-14"
publisher: "legal.ge"
---

# Missing, unused or faulty gas and dust capture equipment (Art. 78)

> Source: legal.ge, https://legal.ge/en/service/administrative-and-public-law-en/missing-unused-or-faulty-gas-and-dust-capture-equipment-art-78-en

## 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 full text is available on legal.ge after signing in: https://legal.ge/en/service/administrative-and-public-law-en/missing-unused-or-faulty-gas-and-dust-capture-equipment-art-78-en

### The filter was installed but switched off during the inspection — which part applies?

That is the difference between part 1 and part 3, and it is worth arguing carefully. Failure to use the equipment falls under part 3, with a fine from GEL 5,000 to GEL 15,000, while a breach of the operating rules or the equipment being out of order falls under part 1, with a fine from GEL 1,000 to GEL 10,000. Documentation showing a technological or maintenance reason for the shutdown, created on the day itself, is what supports the lower classification.

### Is the fine a fixed amount?

No. Article 78 sets a lower and an upper limit for each of its parts and the specific sum is determined within that band. The article itself does not tie the amount to any one criterion, and it does not say how the choice within the band is to be made — that follows from other provisions of the Code and from the circumstances of the case.

### What happens if this is the second time?

Under parts 2, 4 and 6, committing the same act repeatedly doubles the maximum amount of the fine set by the corresponding part. The text ties repetition to an act under that same part rather than to a different one; how repetition is established is governed by other provisions of the Code, not by Article 78.

### Does installing or repairing the equipment after the inspection cancel the fine?

Article 78 does not provide for release from the fine because the breach was remedied afterwards. Proof of remediation is still worth filing: it supports an amount closer to the lower limit of the range and reduces the risk of a further finding being recorded against the site.

### Can the decision be appealed?

Yes. The decision is challenged in the manner and within the time limit set by the Administrative Offences Code. Article 78 does not itself fix that manner or that period, so record the exact date on which the documents reached you and check the deadline against the relevant provisions of the Code.