What Article 198¹ is and whom it applies to
Article 198¹ of the Georgian Administrative Offences Code establishes liability for a person who is not a serviceman but who unlawfully wears the uniform established within the system of the Ministry of Defence of Georgia, or its distinguishing marks. The norm consists of two markers: the person must not be a serviceman, and what is worn must be specifically the uniform of the Ministry of Defence system or its distinguishing marks — generic military-style clothing does not fit this description.
The fine is fixed precisely: 1,000 lari. No range is written in this article — the amount does not depend on how obvious the breach was, and there is no elevated step for a repeat. This page explains what the article says, which acts fit its description, and which questions remain for the assessment of the case.
The elements of the offence: what must be established
A charge under this article requires the establishment of two facts. First, that the person is not a serviceman. Secondly, that the person has been wearing the uniform established in the Ministry of Defence system, or its distinguishing marks. Both facts must exist together: the same uniform worn by a serviceman is not punishable under this article, and the wearing of some other uniform by a civilian does not fall within it.
The article says unlawfully wearing — which presupposes that a civilian's wearing of such uniform may in some circumstances have a lawful basis. When wearing counts as lawful and which document confirms it, the article itself does not explain; that is a matter for other norms. For that very reason, if your wearing of the uniform had any basis, that basis is the first fact of the case to be verified.
What Article 198¹ does not say
The article is short: it defines only the circle of persons, the act and the amount. It does not say which body establishes the offence, what deadlines apply to payment and to challenging the decision, or how the fact of wearing is evidenced. Nor does it describe the distinguishing marks in detail — what counts as such a mark appears from the corresponding rules. These details occupy the centre of the case's assessment: a charge is as strong as the precision with which what was actually worn is established.
The practical angle: when verification is worthwhile
The fixed amount often tempts people to treat the case as conclusively closed. Verification is still worthwhile if: the charge concerns something that is not in fact Ministry of Defence uniform; the wearing had a basis; or you are not connected with the described facts at all. Each of these directions gives the case a different assessment.
Practical steps after the fine
In the penalty document, examine how the clothing and the marks are described: the exactness of the description often decides whether the fact falls within the article at all. Where and when the fact occurred, who witnessed it — record these details immediately. And if you are not connected with the described facts at all, that is a circumstance provable only in time: establishing it later is far harder.
Bear in mind that the article does not limit the place of wearing — the description mentions neither a street nor a stage as treated differently. Therefore the argument that it was only a costume must be grounded not in itself but in the existence of a lawful basis. Here appears the question a specialist must study: whether you have a lawful basis for wearing such uniform, and whether it can be evidenced in documents. The answer to that question changes the direction of the whole case.
How a lawyer helps and what to bring
A lawyer will check whether the described circle of persons matches your status; whether what was worn really was the uniform or marks of that system; whether a lawful basis for wearing existed; and whether the procedural rules were observed when the record was drawn up. For a consultation, bring:
- the penalty decision or act, with its description;
- your identity document;
- any documentation about the clothing or marks, if you hold any;
- photographs or other context showing where and in what circumstances the fact occurred.