The fine is 2,000 lari. Can it be reduced?

Part 1 of Article 55⁵ sets a fixed sum of 2,000 lari, not a range, so there is no scope under this provision to argue the amount down. The only routes available are to contest whether the act occurred and whether it has been correctly classified.

What happens if the fine is not paid on time?

Under the note to the article, non-payment within the period defined by Article 290, part 1 of the Code triggers a surcharge equal to the fine imposed. For instance, a 2,000 lari fine attracts a 2,000 lari surcharge, making a total debt of 4,000 lari. If both remain unpaid 30 days after the surcharge accrues, a measure to secure payment is applied under the procedure established by Georgian legislation.

The plot is outside Tbilisi. Does this article apply?

Article 55⁵ is expressly limited to the administrative boundaries of Tbilisi Municipality. A plot outside those boundaries is not governed by this particular provision, so the location of the plot is the very first thing to verify against the protocol.

I did not fence or occupy anything — I was only using the land. Is that an offence?

The article covers two acts: unauthorised occupation and use without a land-use right. They are joined by "and/or", so the second is sufficient on its own. The decisive question is whether any document evidences a right to use the plot.

Unauthorised occupation of state-owned land (Art. 55⁵)

Q: No one has been fined. Does that mean the matter is closed?

No. Under the note, where the identity of the offender cannot be established, the authorised body has the right to take measures aimed at eliminating the offence. The article does not specify what those measures are, but the situation on the plot can change without any person having been identified.

What Article 55⁵ prohibits

Article 55⁵ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences has a tightly drawn field of application. It applies only within the administrative boundaries of Tbilisi Municipality, and only to a land plot owned by the state or by Tbilisi Municipality itself. A plot in private ownership is not regulated by this provision at all. Within that field the article describes two acts, joined by the words "and/or": occupying the plot without authorisation, and using it without a land-use right. The two do not substitute for one another. A person may face one of them, or both together. The first thing to check in the protocol is therefore which act is actually described in it, and which plot that description attaches to.

The sanctions the law sets

The article has two parts. Under part 1, the conduct described carries a fine of 2,000 lari. Under part 2, the same act committed repeatedly carries a fine of 3,500 lari. In both cases the law names an exact sum rather than a range, so there is no room under this provision to argue the amount down and none to push it up. Everything reduces to two questions: was the act committed at all, and is this a first instance or a repeat one. The gap between the two parts is 1,500 lari, which is why the repeat classification is worth contesting in its own right. The article does not define what makes an act repeated — that is settled under the general provisions of the Code and on the facts of the case, not by anything written in this text.

Who ends up liable

The text lists no categories of liable person. It draws no distinction between a citizen, an official and a business, and both parts set the same amount for everyone. The practical question therefore turns on conduct rather than status: who occupied the plot without authorisation, and who used it without the corresponding right. That distinction often proves decisive where several people are in fact using the plot, or where the occupation and the use belong to different periods. The act described in the protocol and the person the protocol names must correspond exactly, and checking that correspondence is where analysis of the case starts — before any search for legal arguments.

The surcharge, and what non-payment triggers

The article carries a note that in practice often produces a heavier consequence than the fine itself. If the fine imposed under the relevant part is not paid within the period defined by Article 290, part 1 of the Code, a surcharge is imposed on the offender — and the surcharge equals the very fine imposed under that part. For instance, if a 2,000 lari fine under part 1 goes unpaid within the period, the surcharge is 2,000 lari and the total debt becomes 4,000 lari; on a part 2 fine of 3,500 lari, the surcharge is 3,500 lari and the total is 7,000 lari. If the fine and the surcharge remain unpaid within 30 days from the accrual of the surcharge, a measure to secure payment of both is applied against the offender under the procedure established by Georgian legislation. The note itself does not specify what those measures are.

Where the offender cannot be identified

The second practical feature of this article is that matters do not simply stop where no individual can be identified. Under the note, if the identity of the offender cannot be established, the authorised body has the right to take measures aimed at eliminating the offence. The article does not name which body that is, and it does not say what those measures consist of, so the text does not support going any further on that point. The practical conclusion is nonetheless clear: the situation on the plot can change even while no fine has been imposed on anyone, which is why waiting rarely works in your favour in this category of case.

What to check, and where a lawyer changes the outcome

A defence under this article is built on two levels — first whether the provision applies at all, then the facts. Work through the following in order:

whether the plot lies within the administrative boundaries of Tbilisi Municipality;
who owns the plot — the article reaches only state or Tbilisi Municipality ownership;
which act is alleged: unauthorised occupation, use without a land-use right, or both;
whether any document exists that evidences a right to use the plot;
which part the authority is applying, and what the finding of repetition rests on;
the payment deadline stated in the decision — the surcharge can only be avoided inside it.

The most valuable legal work in these cases happens early. The article sets no appeal deadline and names no reviewing body; those come from the general provisions of the Code and will be stated in the decision served on you. Record the date of service in writing on the first day, and settle the payment question in parallel, because once the surcharge accrues the total burden doubles.