Who Article 55⁶ applies to
Article 55⁶ of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia governs a narrow and precisely bounded situation: the unauthorised occupation of a land plot owned by a municipality on that municipality's territory, and/or its use without a land-use right. The exception is stated in the heading of the article itself — it does not extend to the territory of the municipality of the city of Tbilisi. Before the sanction matters at all, two things must be established: that the plot lies outside Tbilisi, and that it is in municipal ownership.
The article covers two acts and links them with "and/or": unauthorised occupation of the plot, and use of it without a land-use right. In practice this reaches situations such as fencing off municipal land, storing materials on it, setting up parking or a trading point, cultivating it, or simply absorbing it into an adjoining private plot. It is common for someone to have used such a strip of ground for years and to learn only when the protocol is drawn up that it belongs to the municipality.
The consolidated text of the article records an amendment made by Law No. 5297 of 26 November 2019. The two acts are joined by "and/or", which means both need not be established at once — unauthorised occupation of the plot is enough on its own, and so is use of it without a right. The article refers to the liable subject only as "the person" and draws no separate distinction between natural and legal persons.
What the sanction is
The article builds liability in two steps and does not reach for money on the first occasion:
- Part 1 — unauthorised occupation and/or use without a right results in a warning being issued to the person;
- Part 2 — the same act, committed repeatedly, results in a fine of 2,000 lari.
That structure has a practical consequence. The decision taken in the first case is the very fact that makes the second one expensive, so a warning is not a document to be filed away and forgotten: its content and its lawfulness deserve the same attention a fine would get. The article does not define the period within which a further act counts as a repeated one, and it does not provide a separate, still higher amount for a third or subsequent occasion.

