What Article 96¹ provides
Article 96¹ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences has two parts and a clear logic: a first detected instance ends with a warning, while a repetition of the same conduct brings a fine whose size is set by the legal status of the person concerned. The article puts two things into one provision — the theft of electricity or natural gas, and the consumption of electricity or natural gas without metering or in breach of the metering rules. The second of those covers situations people do not usually think of as theft at all, which is why it catches households and businesses that never intended to take anything.
The conduct the article covers
The first part of the article describes four situations:
- theft of electricity from the transmission or distribution network of an electricity generation licensee or of a small-capacity power plant;
- theft of natural gas from the natural gas transportation system or from the distribution network;
- consumption of electricity or natural gas without metering;
- consumption of electricity or natural gas in breach of the metering rules.
The article also names the systems from which theft is punishable: for electricity, the transmission or distribution network of a generation licensee or of a small-capacity power plant; for natural gas, the transportation system or the distribution network. That list belongs to the qualification rather than to the description, so the record should say which system or network is actually meant.
The article states expressly that the form of the theft is irrelevant. An argument about how, technically, the connection was made, or what interference occurred at the metering point, does not by itself change the qualification. What matters is whether the conduct took place and who carried it out.
The sanction: a warning first, then a fine
Part 1 provides for a warning. Part 2 applies to the same act committed repeatedly, and it sets three different amounts:
- a natural person, other than an individual entrepreneur registered as a VAT payer — 100 lari;
- a legal person and an institution not registered as VAT payers — 1,000 lari;
- an individual entrepreneur, a legal person and an institution registered as VAT payers — 15,000 lari.
One conclusion follows directly from that list. The article does not tie the fine to the quantity of energy consumed. What decides the amount is the legal form of the person and whether that person is registered as a VAT payer. The same set of facts can therefore attract 100 lari or 15,000 lari depending on nothing but status, which makes identifying that status correctly one of the most consequential questions in the case.
The form of the sanction is worth noting as well. Part 2 states a fixed sum in each of the three cases rather than a range, and the article provides neither an accompanying additional measure nor any add-on tied to the volume consumed. In practice the dispute is therefore rarely about the size of the amount and almost always about the qualification and the correctness of the category.
Why "repeatedly" is the key word here
A warning feels like a painless outcome, and a first decision is often filed away unread. That first decision is precisely what turns the next incident into a fine. For a company registered as a VAT payer the difference between the first and the second case is the difference between a warning and 15,000 lari. Reading that first decision carefully, checking what conduct it records, and challenging it where it is wrong is therefore worth doing even though the sanction itself costs nothing.
Three things are worth checking in that first decision: exactly which conduct it describes, which date and which premises it relates to, and in whose name it was issued. Those three elements are what a later case relies on to treat a second incident as a repetition.
What can be put against the charge
Defence work here normally follows four questions. The first is attribution: who was the actual consumer at the premises, and who had access to the metering point or the connection. The article imposes liability on the person who committed the act and contains no presumption based on whose name the account is in. The second is whether the conduct occurred at all: consumption without metering or in breach of the rules is one thing, a technically defective meter is another, and the two call for different evidence. The third is status: whether the category applied to you — natural person, individual entrepreneur, legal person, institution, VAT-registered or not — is the correct one, since the whole size of the fine rests on it. The fourth is repetition: whether an earlier act under this same article exists and stands, because without it Part 2 does not apply.
No outcome can be promised. What representation changes is whether the facts and documents those four questions turn on are gathered in time and presented in a usable form.
What to bring
The accuracy of any assessment depends on how complete the file is. It helps to have:
- the record of the administrative offence and the decision;
- any earlier warning or decision under the same article;
- the act drawn up by the network operator or supplier, with photographs and video of the metering point;
- technical documentation for the meter, including seal, calibration and repair records;
- the supply contract and documents showing who is registered as the consumer at the premises;
- documents establishing whether you are registered as a VAT payer.