Rechtsidee
Vol 12 No 2 (2024): December (in progress)
Business Law

Judicial Reduction of Penalties in Georgian Civil Law: Balancing Debtor and Creditor Rights

Article View
  • Natia Rekhviashvili*,
  • Nino Kharitonashvili
Natia Rekhviashvili
Caucasus International University, Georgia *
Nino Kharitonashvili
Caucasus International University , Georgia

(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v12i2.1031


Published October 15, 2024
Keywords
  • Penalty,
  • Discretionary Power,
  • Civil Code,
  • Judicial Practice
How to Cite
Rekhviashvili, N., & Kharitonashvili, N. (2024). Judicial Reduction of Penalties in Georgian Civil Law: Balancing Debtor and Creditor Rights. Rechtsidee, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v12i2.1031

Copyright (c) 2024 Natia Rekhviashvili, Nino Kharitonashvili (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

General Background: Judicial discretion in the reduction of penalties plays a crucial role in balancing the interests of contracting parties under the Civil Code of Georgia. Specific Background: Article 420 grants courts the authority to reduce disproportionately high penalties, yet the lack of explicit legal criteria leaves room for case-by-case judicial interpretation. Knowledge Gap: Despite the volume of case law, there remains no standardized framework guiding courts in determining what constitutes an “inappropriately high” penalty. Aims: This study seeks to analyze Georgian court decisions to identify patterns and criteria employed when reducing penalties under Article 420. Results: The findings reveal that courts emphasize proportionality, reasonableness, and the specific circumstances of the breach, including the degree of fault and the scope of unfulfilled obligations. Moreover, the financial status of the parties and market expectations further influence judicial decisions. Novelty: This article consolidates judicial practices to offer a comprehensive framework for reducing penalties, contributing to both theoretical understanding and practical application in legal practice. It introduces a calculation methodology and suggests criteria for equitable penalty reduction in specific legal relationships. Implications: These insights will support legal practitioners in formulating fairer contracts, assist courts in maintaining contractual balance, and guide future legal reforms, fostering both justice and efficiency in contractual relationships.
Highlights:

  • Georgian courts use proportionality and reasonableness to reduce penalties under Article 420.
  • The absence of explicit legal criteria allows case-by-case interpretation, ensuring flexibility but creating inconsistency.
  • Financial status, market expectations, and fault degree influence the court’s discretionary decisions.

Keywords: Penalty, Discretionary Power, Civil Code, Contractual Balance, Judicial Practice

Article View

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Law of Georgia, Civil Code of Georgia, Art. 420, Source: www.matsne.gov.ge, Date of receipt: June 26, 1997, Last accessed: September 11, 2024.
  2. Sh. Kurdadze and N. Khunashvili, Civil Procedural Law of Georgia, 2nd ed., completed and revised, Tbilisi: Meridian Publishing House, 2015, p. 58.
  3. Sh. Kurdadze and N. Khunashvili, Civil Procedural Law of Georgia, 2nd ed., completed and revised, Tbilisi: Meridian Publishing House, 2015, p. 55.
  4. Sh. Kurdadze and N. Khunashvili, Civil Procedural Law of Georgia, 2nd ed., completed and revised, Tbilisi: Meridian Publishing House, 2015, p. 59.
  5. N. Ioseliani, "Additional Means of Securing the Demand (Penalty, Earnest Money, a Debtor’s Guarantee)," Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 2021, p. 49.
  6. Law of Georgia, Civil Code of Georgia, Art. 417, Source: www.matsne.gov.ge, Date of enactment: June 26, 1997, Last accessed: September 11, 2024.
  7. Supreme Court of Georgia, Decision No. 60210016001420104, Case No. AS-272-272-2018, March 23, 2018.
  8. Supreme Court of Georgia, Decision No. AS-1597-2019, December 13, 2019.
  9. Law of Georgia, Civil Code of Georgia, Art. 418, Para. 2, Source: www.matsne.gov.ge, Date of receipt: June 26, 1997, Last accessed: January 5, 2024.
  10. Supreme Court of Georgia, Decision No. AS-940-2023, October 13, 2023.
  11. M. Garcia, "Enforcement of Penalty Clauses in Civil and Common Law: A Puzzle to be Solved by the Contracting Parties," European Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 86, Spring/Summer 2012. [Online]. Available: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/24818.
  12. M. Garcia, "Enforcement of Penalty Clauses in Civil and Common Law: A Puzzle to be Solved by the Contracting Parties," European Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 87, Spring/Summer 2012. [Online]. Available: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/24818.
  13. Supreme Court of Georgia, Decision No. AS-1272-2022, September 28, 2023.
  14. S. Jorbenadze, in Commentary on the Civil Code, Book III: General Part of Obligatory Law, edited by Chanturia, Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), East-West Management Institute (EWMI), 2019, Article 420, p. 802.
  15. S. Jorbenadze, in Commentary on the Civil Code, Book III: General Part of Obligatory Law, edited by Chanturia, Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), East-West Management Institute (EWMI), 2019, Article 420, p. 806.
  16. S. Jorbenadze, in Commentary on the Civil Code, Book III: General Part of Obligatory Law, edited by Chanturia, Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), East-West Management Institute (EWMI), 2019, Article 420, p. 809.
  17. N. Ioseliani, "Additional Means of Securing the Demand (Penalty, Earnest Money, a Debtor’s Guarantee)," Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 2021, pp. 86-87.
  18. N. Ioseliani, "Additional Means of Securing the Demand (Penalty, Earnest Money, a Debtor’s Guarantee)," Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 2021, p. 92.
  19. Supreme Court of Georgia, Ruling No. 3k/467-01, Civil, Entrepreneurial, and Bankruptcy Chamber, June 27, 2001, Tbilisi.
  20. S. Jorbenadze, in Commentary on the Civil Code, Book III, edited by Chanturia, 2019, Article [Field Number], p. 804.
  21. State Procurement Agency, "Recommendation on Determining the Amount of Penalty." [Online]. Available: http://procurement.gov.ge/files/showfiles?id=d70fffe0-7a93-41bc-9984-8ead10f7114b, Last accessed: January 18, 2024.
  22. Supreme Court of Georgia, Decision No. AS-1488-1408-2017, February 15, 2018; No. AS-214-204-2016, June 22, 2016.
  23. Supreme Court of Georgia, Decision No. AS-1336-2019, March 30, 2022; No. AS-1928-2018, October 31, 2019.
  24. Supreme Court of Georgia, Decision No. AS-144-140-2016, April 19, 2016; No. AS-327-2019, May 27, 2019; No. AS-825-2019, September 5, 2019; No. AS-1511-2018, March 26, 2019.
  25. Supreme Court of Georgia, Decision No. AS-186-2021, March 25, 2021; No. AS-1226-2019, March 30, 2022.