Legal.GeLegal.Ge
Wildlife, Protected Areas & Biosafety

Polluting or damaging the land of a protected area (Art. 71¹)

We were fined under Article 71¹ for leaving rubbish. Is that correct?

Only paragraph 5 of this article is currently in force; the other paragraphs have been repealed. Paragraph 5 concerns pollution or damage caused by radioactive, bacteriological, chemical or other harmful substances, radioactive waste, industrial, household or other waste waters, and emissions of harmful substances. The protocol should show which of those the authority relied on.

Can the 3,000 GEL be reduced if the incident was small?

Paragraph 5 of Article 71¹ sets a single fixed amount of 3,000 GEL and leaves no statutory range. Arguing about the figure within this provision therefore leads nowhere; the question that matters is whether the conduct falls under the paragraph at all.

If we clean up the site, is the fine cancelled?

The note to the article states that an offender is given a reasonable period to correct the consequences of the offences it covers. It does not say the fine is cancelled, and it does not specify who sets the period or how long it is. Document any remedial steps you take, but do not treat them as an automatic release from the fine.

Who is held liable — the company or an individual employee?

Article 71¹ does not regulate that allocation separately; it penalises the conduct. Who the protocol is drawn up against depends in practice on the facts and the documents: who carried out the activity, who was responsible for supervision, and what the internal records show.

Does it matter that a subcontractor caused the discharge?

The article addresses the pollution or damage itself, not the contractual chain behind it. Contracts, work orders and site records are what establish whose activity produced the discharge, so they should be collected early rather than reconstructed after a decision has been issued.

5 min·22 Aug 2026

What Article 71¹ penalises today

Article 71¹ of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia deals with the littering and damaging of land within protected areas. The first thing to notice when reading it is that only one of its seven paragraphs is currently in force: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 have been repealed, so no charge can rest on them. Anyone relying on the article as a general littering provision is relying on text that no longer exists.

The operative paragraph 5 penalises the pollution or damaging of land in protected areas caused by radioactive, bacteriological, chemical or other harmful substances, by radioactive waste, by industrial, household or other waste waters, and by emissions of harmful substances. That list matters: the conduct alleged has to fall inside it, and if it does not, paragraph 5 is not the right provision.

The fine is a fixed figure

Conduct falling under paragraph 5 results in a fine of 3,000 GEL. This is a fixed amount: the article sets no lower and upper limits and therefore leaves no range inside which the figure itself could be argued about.

For that reason a dispute under this article usually turns on classification rather than on the amount. Three questions stay open. Did pollution or damage occur at all? Which of the listed substances, wastes, waste waters or emissions is said to have caused it? And was the land in question land of a protected area? If the answer to any of them is no, paragraph 5 does not apply, and that is where the real work of a defence is done.

The note on a reasonable period

The article carries a note with practical significance: an offender is given a reasonable period to correct the consequences of the offences provided for by this article. The law, in other words, expressly contemplates that consequences may be put right and that time is allowed for doing so.

At the same time, the article does not specify who determines that period, how many days or months "reasonable" means, or what follows if the period is observed or missed. Any conclusion on those points has to come from the documents in your own file rather than from assumption. In particular, the note does not say that correcting the consequences cancels the fine, and you should not plan on the basis that it does.

Updated: 13 Nov 2026

Related Services

Breach of the licence conditions for use of fir cones and CITES plants (Art. 66²)Breach of the rules on restoring natural resources in a protected area (Art. 67¹)Breach of the rules on protecting wild animal habitat, and unauthorised translocation (Art. 85)Breach of the rules on using chemicals, causing harm to wildlife (Art. 85¹)Breach of the rules on regulating wild animal numbers (Art. 85⁵)Breach of the rules and licence for contained use of genetically modified organisms (Art. 87¹)Breach of the rules on labelling genetically modified organisms (Art. 87³)Destroying the boundary markers of a protected area (Art. 55⁴)Illegal trade in and transport of CITES species (Art. 66³)Breach of the conditions of a CITES permit (Art. 66⁴)Breach of the rules on removing a Red List protected plant from the wild (Art. 66⁵)Breach of the transport safety rules for genetically modified organisms (Art. 87²)