The fine is only 200 lari and I do not dispute what happened. Is there anything worth arguing?

That depends on what "what happened" means legally rather than factually. The article penalises unauthorised occupation, so a use that rests on a permit, a contract or another basis is not within it even if the physical facts are undisputed. Since the amount cannot be moved, the question of basis is the only one worth examining.

Does the article require that harm was caused to the water body?

No. The text of Article 48 names no consequence among the elements of the offence — it describes the occupation itself. This means an absence of harm is not a standalone answer to the charge, and equally that the authority is not required to demonstrate harm in order to apply the fine.

Can I also be ordered to vacate the water body or remove a structure?

Article 48 itself provides for the fine and for nothing else. Any further requirement — removal, restoration or vacation — would have to rest on a different provision of law, not on this article. If such a demand has been made of you, it should be examined separately from the fine.

The water body adjoins land I own. Does that change the position?

The article does not address the ownership of adjoining land, so owning it neither creates nor removes liability by itself. What matters is whether there was a lawful basis for the occupation of the water body, which is a documentary question. Bring your title papers and any permits so that this can be assessed properly.

Unauthorised occupation of a water body (Art. 48)

What Article 48 covers

Article 48 of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences concerns the unauthorised occupation of a water body. The article is short and describes a single act — unauthorised occupation. Its text contains no detailed definition of that act, no additional conditions, and no requirement that a consequence followed. Precisely because it is so brief, the fate of a case under it depends almost entirely on how the factual circumstances are described and evidenced in the record and in the decision that follows.

In practice these cases arise out of very different situations: a structure erected in a shoreline strip, a building or installation placed on a water body, the fencing of an area, or a pattern of factual use that no document supports. If such an act has been issued against you, establish at once which object is actually being referred to, what period the case concerns, and what document the authority is relying on.

The sanction: a fixed 200 lari

Article 48 provides for a fine in the amount of 200 lari. That is a single, fixed figure. The article sets no lower and upper limits, gives no range within which the penalty could be reduced, and does not offer a warning as an alternative to the fine.

This has a practical consequence you should factor in from the beginning: there is no version of this dispute that aims at "reducing" the fine. If the basis of liability is established, the sum is fixed by the law itself. The only real direction a defence can take, therefore, is to contest the basis of liability — the facts and the qualification — rather than the figure attached to it.

A modest sum often makes simply paying look like the easiest way out, but the decision is not purely financial. The factual assessment recorded in the act — that you occupied a particular object, and that the occupation had no basis — stays in the document as written. If that description does not match your situation, the time to say so is while the case is running.

What Article 48 does not say

The article is unusually laconic, and many questions simply find no answer in its text. That is not a gap to be filled by assumption — what the article does not say is often where the defence begins:

it provides no separate, increased sanction for repeat commission of the act;
it sets no different amount for different categories of person — the sum is one and the same;
it does not name a consequence, that is the occurrence of damage, among the elements of the offence;
it says nothing about which body hears the case, or about the route and the period for challenging the decision — those follow from other provisions of the Code and must be checked separately on your case;
it provides for no measure other than the fine, so any additional requirement made of you has to rest on a different provision and deserves separate scrutiny.

What the dispute is really about

Because the amount is fixed, the whole weight of the dispute shifts onto the facts and the qualification. Three questions usually carry the case. Was what happened genuinely the occupation of a water body? Was that occupation unauthorised — that is, did you hold a document or a right that provided a basis for the use? And is the act correctly attributed to you at all? The last question arises more often than people expect: proximity to the object, or ownership of adjoining land, does not by itself establish that you were the one who occupied it.

All three questions are settled by evidence, which is why timing matters. The situation on the ground changes: a structure is dismantled, the water level shifts, a fence is moved. If your position rests on the object having looked different from the way the record describes it, fix that today — by photographs, video, measurements or other objective material. Evidence gathered later reflects the state of a different moment.

Where a lawyer changes the outcome

In a case of this shape the lawyer's task is clear — not to negotiate a figure, but to test the basis on which it rests:

analysing whether the record describes the act, the place and the time with sufficient precision;
checking whether a permit, a contract or another basis exists that removes the element of unauthorised use;
assessing whether it is actually established that you carried out the occupation;
preparing a written position and the supporting evidence for the hearing of the case;
identifying which provisions govern the route and the period for challenging the decision in your situation.

What to bring to the consultation

Gathering the documents in advance makes the first meeting considerably more productive:

a full copy of the record and of the decision, with the date of service;
any permit, contract or title document bearing on your connection to the object;
photographs and video of the location, ideally with dates and coordinates;
correspondence with the authority and your written explanation, if one has already been submitted;
details of witnesses who can confirm the factual situation.

From that material it is usually clear at the first meeting whether the case has prospects and which element the effort should go into. Cases under Article 48 are frequently decided at the level of documents, because whether the occupation was unauthorised is established precisely by the presence or absence of one.