What Article 149 covers
Article 149 of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia brings together two closely related acts: the unlawful consumption of drinking water and the unlawful use of the sewerage network. Both concern the use of shared infrastructure without the legal basis that such use is supposed to rest on. The article itself does not define what makes the consumption or the use unlawful — that assessment is made on the facts of the individual case, which is precisely why most disputes under this article turn on that question rather than on the size of the penalty.
The article does not confine liability to private individuals. Its second paragraph names, separately, a natural person, an individual entrepreneur, a legal person and an institution, and then divides them further according to whether they are registered as VAT payers. The practical consequence is straightforward: the same physical act — one connection, one recorded instance of use — produces very different financial outcomes depending on who the law treats as the responsible person.
The sanction under paragraph 1: a warning
Under the first paragraph of Article 149, the unlawful consumption of drinking water and the unlawful use of the sewerage network result in a warning. No monetary penalty is attached to a first instance at all; the Code reserves fines for repetition.
That makes the warning a far more consequential document than it looks. It is recorded, and it is what later determines whether a subsequent act is treated as repeated — in other words, whether the case moves out of paragraph 1 and into the fines of paragraph 2. Even when no money has been demanded of you, it is worth reading the document to the end, checking that it names the right person and describes the conduct accurately, and keeping a copy of it.
Paragraph 2: repetition and three different amounts
Where the same act is committed repeatedly, the second paragraph sets out three separate amounts:
- a natural person, other than an individual entrepreneur registered as a VAT payer — 100 GEL;
- a legal person and an institution that are not registered as VAT payers — 1,000 GEL;
- an individual entrepreneur, a legal person and an institution that are registered as VAT payers — 15,000 GEL.
Two features of this structure matter in practice. First, the amount has nothing to do with how much water was used or for how long: it follows the status of the person to whom the act is attributed. Second, the exclusion in the first band is narrow and specific — the only person removed from the category of natural person is the individual entrepreneur registered as a VAT payer. Establishing correctly who committed the act, and what that person's VAT registration status is, therefore fixes the figure long before any argument about mitigating circumstances is reached. The wording of the article now in force rests on the amendment made by the Law of 19 March 2025, No. 387.
How a case usually unfolds
A case normally begins with a protocol drawn up on site, recording the fact of the connection or the use and identifying the person to whom it is attributed. Article 149 does not itself state what the protocol must contain or which body decides the case; those questions are governed by the general part of the Code and by the powers of the relevant authority, not by this provision. What the article does fix is the set of elements that have to be established: that the use was unlawful and — for any fine at all to arise — that it was repeated.
Disputes therefore tend to concentrate on three points. Was the use unlawful in the first place? Has the right person been identified, particularly where the premises are leased, shared, or were recently transferred? And is repetition genuinely documented rather than assumed from the circumstances?
What you can do, and where a lawyer changes the outcome
If a protocol has already been drawn up, start by establishing which paragraph it invokes — the first, which carries a warning, or the second, which carries a fine — and which of the three categories of person the addressee has been placed in. Those two elements determine whether money is at stake at all and, if it is, how much.
Representation makes a difference at several concrete points: testing whether the earlier act said to establish repetition actually appears on the record and concerns the same person; checking that the category of subject and the VAT status applied to it are correct; assembling evidence that the use rested on a contract or another lawful basis; and preparing a challenge to the decision where the facts support one. None of this guarantees a particular result, but each of these questions is settled on the evidence in the file rather than on the conclusion recorded in the protocol.
What to prepare
Bring the documents that speak to the three contested issues — lawfulness, the identity of the person, and repetition:
- the administrative offence protocol and, if it has already been issued, the decision;
- any earlier warning, since that is what creates repetition;
- the water supply and sewerage contract, the subscriber record and the billing history;
- proof of ownership of or the right to use the premises, and the lease agreement if the premises are let;
- confirmation of VAT registration status where the addressee is a business;
- photographs, inspection reports and correspondence describing the history of the connection.