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reading it is that only one of its seven paragraphs is currently in force: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 have been repealed, so no charge can rest on them.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.
Who the article reaches in practice
Article 71¹ does not define a separate class of persons it applies to — it penalises the conduct. In practice the question tends to arise in the following situations:
- a plant or facility from which waste water, or an emission of a harmful substance, reaches land in a protected area;
- construction or infrastructure works carried out on, or immediately adjacent to, protected-area land;
- the removal or temporary storage of waste, or the setting up of a storage site;
- the transport or storage of chemical substances, where a spill occurs;
- economic activity in the course of which a harmful substance reaches protected-area land.
Several parties are often involved in these situations — an owner, an operator, a contractor. Who the protocol is drawn up against depends on the facts, and the facts are established from documents: contracts, work logs, internal instructions, and the acts appointing responsible staff. That material is worth collecting immediately, while it still exists in a form somebody can locate.
How the case proceeds
The case begins with a protocol drawn up by an authorised official and continues with examination of the case and the issuing of a decision. Because paragraph 5 is built around specific categories of substances, wastes and waste waters, establishing the facts normally requires showing what reached the land and how it is connected to your activity — which is exactly the point at which documentation about your own processes becomes useful.
Note also that Article 71¹ does not itself state which authority draws up the protocol, within what period a decision may be challenged, or what the decision must contain. Those matters are governed by other provisions of the Code and must be checked against your own papers.
What to prepare, and where a lawyer helps
Because 3,000 GEL is a fixed sanction, preparation is directed entirely at the facts and the classification. Assemble:
- the protocol and the decision, with the dates on which each was served;
- documentation establishing the location and the status of the land;
- any material on the origin of the substance, waste or waste water in question;
- technical documentation of your activity: schematics, logs, contracts with contractors;
- evidence of any steps taken to correct the consequences, in the context of the reasonable period the note provides for.
A lawyer will test whether the conduct genuinely falls under the operative paragraph 5 rather than under one of the repealed paragraphs, and whether the material in the file supports what the protocol describes. No result can be promised in advance. But where the fine is fixed by statute, that examination is the part of the case that actually moves it, and it is worth doing before the decision is issued rather than after.
One last, purely practical point: keep the date of service for every document you sign or receive. As noted above, this article sets no time limit of its own; time limits are governed by other provisions of the Code and have to be established on your own papers. The documentary trace of the reasonable period the note provides for should be visible in the same file, all the more so because the note itself does not say who determines that period, how long it runs, or what follows if it is observed.