- Penalty,
- Discretionary Power,
- Civil Code,
- Judicial Practice
Copyright (c) 2024 Natia Rekhviashvili, Nino Kharitonashvili (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
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
Downloads
Metrics
References
1) Djorbenadze S., Commentary on the Civil Code, Book III, Chanturia (ed.), German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), East-West Management Institute (EWMI), Tbilisi, 2019;
2) Ioseliani N., “Additional Means of Securing the Demand (Penalty, earnest money, a debtor’s guarantee)“, Tbilisi, 2021, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University;
3) Kapanadze S., "Theoretical and practical aspects of the reduction of penalty", "Student Legal Journal", 2016;
4) Kereselidze D., "Limited amount of interest provided for a loan, void or necessarily void (invalid) transaction (review of the practice of the Supreme Court)", type: review, category: private law; justice; administrative law; "Review of Georgian Law - Volume 5. N 2-3", 2002;
5) Kurdadze, Sh., & Khunashvili, N., “Civil Procedural Law of Georgia” (2nd ed., completed and revised). Meridian Publishing House. Tbilisi, 2015;
6) Kvinikadze St., “Reduction of the penalty by the court as "judicial intervention" in the principle of contractual freedom”, "Justice and Law", No. 2(2016);
7) Shamatava I., "The standard of equal protection of the rights and obligations of the parties in the loan agreement", Caucasus University, dissertation, Tbilisi, 2022;
Foreign language sources:
1) Garcia I. M., 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, Issue 1,
Spring/Summer 2012, https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/24818;
2) Ferris S.V., Liquidated Damages Recovery Under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, “Cornell Law Review”, Vol., 67, Issue 4, April, 1982, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/216747853.pdf;
3) Foreign Currency Loans and the Foundations of European Contract Law – A Case for Financial and Contractual Crisis? By: Grundmann, Stefan, Badenhoop, Nikolai, European Review of Contract Law, 16149920, Apr2023, Vol. 19, Issue 1; წყარო: EBSCO; Legal Source;
4) The Impact of Loan Securitization on Standing and Real-Party-in-Interest Issues. By: BOUFFARD, ANDRE D., Commercial & Business Litigation, 19367597, Spring2011, Vol. 12, Issue 3; წყარო: EBSCO; Legal Source;
5) The Tax Treatment of Cancelled Interest and Penalties on Consumer Debt. By: Beck, Richard C. E., New York Law School Law Review, 0145448X, 2009, Vol. 53, Issue 4; წყარო: EBSCO; Legal Source;
Court decisions:
1) Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia case No.-60210016001420104; Case No. As-272-272-2018; March 23, 2018;
2) Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia, case No. As-1597-2019, 13.12.2019;
3) Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia case No.-60210016001420104; Case No. As-272-272-2018; March 23, 2018;
4) Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia case No. AS-940-2023;
5) Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia case No. AS-1272-2022;
6) Ruling of the Civil, Entrepreneurial and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia N3k/467-01, June 27, 2001, St. Tbilisi;
7) Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia case No. AS-1272-2022;
8) Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia No. As-1488-1408-2017, 15.02.2018; No. As-214-204-2016, 22.06.2016;
9) Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia No. As-1336-2019, 30.03.2022; No. AS-1928-2018, 31.10.2019;
10) Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia No. As-144-140-2016, 19.04.2016; No. AS-327-2019. 27.05.2019; No. AS-825-2019, 5.09.2019; No. AS-1511-2018, 26.03.2019;
11) Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia, case No. As-186-2021, 25.03.2021; No. AS-1226-2019, 30.03.2022;
12) Decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia case No. As-186-2021, 25.03.2021; No. As-1226-2019, 30.03.2022.
Internet resources:
http://procurement.gov.ge/files/showfiles?id=d70fffe0-7a93-41bc-9984-8ead10f7114b , last accessed: 24.09.2024.