What Article 55 protects
Article 55 of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia protects the physical markers by which land-use boundaries are set out on the ground. The provision covers three acts: removing a boundary marker of land-use boundaries, damaging it, and arbitrarily changing the boundary strip. In all three the protected interest is the same — the reliability of the boundary as it stands in the field. The article attaches the restoration of the boundary to its original condition to the sanction, so putting the marker back does not replace the penalty — it accompanies it.
In practice these cases almost always arise between neighbouring plots. Typical situations include moving a fence over by a few metres, pulling out a boundary post or a geodetic marker, dragging or damaging it with machinery, gradually "straightening" the strip while ploughing, and shifting a marker by an amount that looks trivial but changes the boundary permanently. A protocol may be drawn up against the person who did the work with their own hands, or against the person on whose instruction it was done — that is a question of the facts of the case.
What the article provides
Article 55 sets liability at two levels, and at the first level the sanction is an alternative one:
- removal or damage of a boundary marker, or arbitrary change of the boundary strip — a fine from 300 to 700 lari or administrative detention for a term of ten days, with the boundary being brought back to its original condition;
- the same act, committed repeatedly — a fine from 1,500 to 2,000 lari.
The two ranges are separate and do not merge into one continuous span: for a first act the law provides 300 to 700 lari, and for a repeated act 1,500 to 2,000 lari. At the first level the fine and administrative detention are alternatives to one another, so they are not applied together. The second sentence of the article names only a fine for a repeated act and does not restate the detention alternative.
The consolidated text of the article records amendments made by the decree of 3 August 1992, by Law No. 436 of 17 March 1994 and by Law No. 1141 of 10 December 1997. The wording that stands today is spare: it describes the act and the sanction and leaves procedural detail to the general part of the Code.
Restoring the boundary — and what this article does not decide
The first-level sanction carries an additional requirement with it: the boundary is to be brought back to its original condition. That means restoring the state of affairs that existed before the act, not establishing a new boundary. The article does not say who must carry that work out, within what period, or what follows if it is not done; those questions are answered from the file of the particular case and from other legislation, not from this provision. Where the marker was set on the basis of a geodetic survey, the restoration should rest on the same data, so that the work done does not generate a fresh dispute of its own.
One further distinction is essential. Article 55 penalises conduct; it does not resolve a dispute over title. If you and your neighbour genuinely disagree about where the boundary runs, that question is not examined within this article — the provision does not address it at all. The outcome of the administrative case therefore does not confirm, by itself, that the boundary runs in favour of one side or the other. It assesses only the fact of removal, damage, or arbitrary alteration of the strip. Treating an administrative decision as a determination of the boundary is a common and costly misunderstanding.
What you can do about it
The defence here is largely documentary and metric. Where a protocol has been drawn up against you, the first thing established is where the registered boundary ran before the act and what changed after it. If the protocol relies on repetition, the existence and the content of the earlier case are checked separately. The article does not state within what period a further act counts as a repeated one, so that circumstance always has to be verified against documents rather than assumed. The following material is usually the most useful:
- the cadastral extract and the registered boundaries of the plot;
- a geodetic survey drawing, if one was made before the act;
- dated photographs of the condition of the fence, post or marker;
- the earlier decision, if the case rests on repetition;
- details of witnesses who know where the marker stood.
One feature deserves attention on its own: at the first level the law permits administrative detention as well as a fine. That sets these cases materially apart from an ordinary monetary penalty, because the choice lies between two entirely different outcomes and rests on the facts. Representation therefore counts for more, and counts earlier, than it does where the fine is fixed — the position starts forming while the protocol is being drawn up and the explanation given.
Bring a complete copy of the protocol and the decision with their annexes to the consultation, together with any papers from the underlying neighbour dispute. If the boundary has not yet been restored, work out with your lawyer in what form and in what order that is best done, so that the work carried out does not itself become contested later.