Some features of the development of Georgian private law from the 90s to the present day

Abstract

The presented article is dedicated to the trends of development of Georgian private law from the 90s to our days. In the scientific work are considered several essential legal reforms in the direction of both general private law and special branches of private law (labor law, corporate law). Accordingly, the article explores the grounds for legislative changes, their negative and positive sides. The purpose of the research is, first of all, to determine what are the features of common law and the law of continental Europe, then to determine which of them were reflected in the legislative changes implemented in Georgian private law, and with what specificity. Accordingly, the article analyzes the tendencies of private law development in Georgia with regard to legal reforms. The research confirms that most of the legislative changes served as a departure from Soviet rules, which was considered as a difficult task. At the same time, the reforms were aimed at bringing them closer to European standards and improving national legislation, although it became clear that the implementation of separate changes was based on the influence of American law too.

Keywords: Private Law, Development, Legislative Changes, European Law

Introduction

In the 1990s, Georgian private law faced a choice - to be faithful to the old rules or to share the path of European development. Obviously, this was the basis for the reforms to be carried out in the field of Georgian private law. In this context, the purpose of the study is to briefly discuss the steps taken for the adoption of the Civil Code of Georgia of 1997 (hereinafter – Civil Code) and to analyze and evaluate the legislative innovations. It should be determined here what influence the process of reception and European law had on Georgian private law, what are the characteristics of Common law and Continental European law, which of them are reflected in Georgian private law – peculiarities of European law or Common law.

Therefore, this article is concerned not only with the main legislative changes in the field of private law, but also with what was the basis of this or that legislative change, whether these changes were progressive or not. In this way, it will be clear how Georgian private law was changing. This issue is important not only from a theoretical, but also from a practical point of view, since it determines what was the basis for making various legislative changes and what allows for a proper interpretation of the current version, which is a prerequisite for its correct use in practice.

Thus, in the research, with the help of historical, normative-dogmatic, synthesis and analysis methods, the main reforms carried out in private law from the 90s to the present, which relate to various aspects of the development of the field, are discussed.

National Law and Continental European Law

In general, the Europeanization of law is related to many aspects, the most important of which is the clearly expressed will of the state and the people to be a member of the European family. It is also important to introduce European values in the country.

Law (considered as a constituent part of culture), its reception involves consideration of both cultural and technical factors.[1] Accordingly, the recognition of Georgia as part of the legal culture of continental Europe implies the formation of a new legal culture in Georgia. The Europeanization of Georgian law is also a cultural-historical process, in which close cooperation with European universities and legal scientists is particularly important.[2]

In the beginning, the Europeanization of private law was promoted and carried out by the Germans as an academic task. Then this idea was shared by other European countries, such as: Italy, Spain (especially Catalonia), Scotland and the Netherlands. In contrast, the attitude towards research on the Europeanization of private law has been extremely cautious in other countries, notably France. In itself, the idea of Europeanization has been strongly promoted by EU directives.[3]

In addition, in the process of Europeanization, it is most important to adapt legal education to European standards, to receive education in European universities.[4] If students continue to study the basics of national legal systems without understanding their historical development and without showing other ways of solving this or that problem, then there is a great risk of national particularization of jurisprudence. This can lead to confusion of different circumstances, unjustified actions and formation of the next generation of lawyers accordingly. Therefore, the Europeanization of legal education requires the strengthening of such subjects, which are distinguished not only by their basic specificity, but also by their inherent internationality.[5]

It should be noted here that the adaptation of the national legislation to the European requirements is one of the most important tasks in terms of the development of the legal base as well as the rapprochement with Europe.

It is interesting to briefly present the difference between the legal systems in order to determine characteristic features of which legal family are found in the civil legislation of Georgia according to the current situation.

In general, Continental European law recognizes the principle of separation of powers, from which it follows that the judiciary does not have the power of law-making activity. However, Anglo-American law considers law to be what a judge thinks it is.[6]

Legislation is considered the main source of law in Continental European law countries. Large areas are systematically codified and based on a certain system. The code is not a set of special norms regulating specific relations; it regulates relations between persons with the help of general reservations and principles so as to be comprehensive and applicable to all subjects. As for Common law, in this case the judge is focused on individual cases and the precedents are his guide. Common law considers these decisions as sources of law. A decision made in Common law countries is binding not only for the parties to this relationship, but must be respected in similar cases arising in the future. In fact, Common law includes all the rules that can be generalized from court decisions.[7] Accordingly, Continental European law is characterized by a deductive way of thinking: legal disputes are resolved using the appropriate rule(s) from a systematized code. Immanent to the Common law is an inductive style of reasoning: disputes are resolved by finding cases based on similar facts.[8]

It is true that Georgian law is a member of the family of Continental European law, but it is also obvious to recognize the trends of Common law. For example, more and more importance is attached to judicial precedents, and casuistic thinking is introduced as well. The assessment of the stages of development of private law legislation from the 90s to the present will give us a relatively accurate picture of how much and in what direction it was developing; Sharing the experience of which law was the basis for various legislative changes.

Thus, in the process of Europeanization, it is essential to consider European directives, values, legal education and other circumstances. However, the question arises: what is the scope of application of European law - is it necessary to limit its use, or should it be considered vertically and unconditionally?

The German Constitutional Court discussed this and explained that the use of European law is important for the development of national law, although it is necessary to observe certain limits. The fact is that independent states are united in the European Union, and it is the responsibility of the national legislative authorities not to violate the sovereignty of the state when applying European legislation. Therefore, the court explained that in this process it is necessary to leave free space for the EU member states to define economic, cultural and social policies.[9]

At the Beginnings of Georgian Private Law

In the 90s of the 20th century, Georgia was faced with a choice - to participate in the CIS model code development group or to cooperate with the Germans. The final choice rested on the Europeans. With the help of the civil code, Georgia shared the cultural world of the West and the developed legal culture.[10] In 1991, the governmental commission for developing the Civil Code was created under the leadership of Professor Sergo Zorbenadze, who gathered mainly his student professors: Lado Chanturia, Zurab Akhvlediani, Roman Shengelia, Besarion Zoidze. The code drafting commission worked for almost three years with its full composition.[11] Despite the civil war of 1992-1994, the commission did not stop its work.[12]

Since 1993, intensive consultations with German colleagues, led by Professor Rolf Knipper of the University of Bremen, began. The President of Georgia submitted a legislative initiative to the Parliament, which unanimously adopted the Civil Code on June 26, 1997 - the first Civil Code in the history of independent Georgia.[13]

Finally, similar to German private law, Georgian private law combined general private law (civil law) and special branches of private law, which include special rules for regulating specific relationships.[14] This idea is shared in Georgian law. The civil code and other laws of private law provide the legal basis for this.[15]

Georgian judicial practice also recognizes this concept. For example, the Supreme Court of Georgia noted in one of the cases that Georgian civil law is general private law. The activity of institutions provided for by the Civil Code is not limited to civil law and extends to other branches of private law as well.[16] This especially applies to the introductory part of civil law, as it regulates such institutions of private legal relations as persons, transactions, terms and others. Therefore, the general provisions of the civil law are applied to the issues of labor relations that are not regulated by the Labor Code.[17]

General Part of Civil Law

The Civil Code of Georgia was based on the system of Pandetc law, because the general part of the civil law and the special books of the civil law were separated. In this way, the provisions of the general part of civil law apply to special branches of civil law as well,[18] unless a special norm establishes a different regulation.

Regarding the legal status of persons, Georgia has carried out an important reform and brought the national legislation closer to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which it ratified on December 26, 2013. As a result, in 2015, a legal amendment was introduced in the Civil Code,[19] by which, instead of the term “retarded”, the term “person in need of psychosocial support” (beneficiary of support) appeared; it was established that a person who, despite psychological, mental and/or intellectual disorders, is considered capable of action is regarded a beneficiary of support. Accordingly, he was given the opportunity to exercise his civil rights and duties. However, if the beneficiary of support needed help (support) in this or that relationship to implement his will and action, he is assigned a supporter for the purpose of assistance.[20]

In addition, the term “personal relations” can be found in the Civil Code. The civil legislation of the old regime (Georgian SSR) used the similar term “personal non-property relations”. In this context, civil legislation protects personal rights whose objects are inseparable from the person, and personal rights whose objects are separable from the subject (name, image, personal data, etc.) are regulated. Nevertheless, the impact of private law on the protected and regulated relations in Article 1 of the Civil Code is conveyed by one term – “regulation”.[21] In addition, if the Western countries (Germany, France) created the institution of personal non-property rights only as a result of judicial law, Georgia strengthened it by legislation. In the general part of the civil law of Georgia, the circle of personal non-property rights was determined based on the singular principle, and the protection of personal rights was based on the beginning of the generalization of personality. Accordingly, those personal rights that are not listed in Article 18 of the general part of civil law can be filled and protected by the most general norm of tort law - Article 992 of the Civil Code. In addition, in Germany there is a rule of “compensation for non-material damage in cases defined by law”, which is shared in Georgia, however, Germany is taking the path of expanding non-material damage compensation based on the recognition of the “general personal right” within the framework of the legislative amendment and Article 823 of the German Civil Code. Georgian civilization hardly adapts to such innovations. Accordingly, it is advisable to expand the cases of compensation for non-material damages in Georgia, taking into account scientific knowledge and German experience.[22]

An amendment was made in the 2^nd part of Article 18 of the Civil Code, which brought this part of the Code closer to the American law. For example, in some countries, including the USA, defamation does not lead to criminal liability. Georgia also shared this approach. The Law “On Freedom of Speech and Expression” was adopted, which, by reversing the burden of proof, imposed on the plaintiff the duty to prove the inconsistency of the information spread about him. This should indicate the effect of US law. This law introduced the concept of a public person, outlined the need to separate fact and opinion, and more. Accordingly, the law took into account the standards of freedom of expression that are close to the norms recognized in European and American law.[23] Thus, with the Law “On Freedom of Speech and Expression”, mostly the trends of American law were reflected and the freedom of expression was greatly expanded. However, it is noteworthy that Georgia is a member of the Continental European law family and a higher standard of protection of dignity is recognized by the Constitution of Georgia.[24] Accordingly, the current law, on the contrary, should strengthen the constitutional norm and regulate relations, taking into account the peculiarities of national law.

Taking into account the international obligation, Article 18¹ (the right to receive personal data) was added to the Civil Code, and personal data was included in the scope of private legal protection.[25] However, this article does not contain information about which claims the victim can submit in case of violation of the right. Therefore, it is true that the receiving of personal data was reflected in the Civil Code, but since the law, in addition to being clear and precise, should also contain effective sanctions, the European standards were partially taken into account by the legislative amendment.[26]

Then comes the chapter on legal entities in the Civil Code. Unlike the Model Civil Code of the CIS, Georgia has fully regulated the legal status of legal entities in the Civil Code. It means the classification of legal entities into private law and public law legal entities, which is a novelty for the post-Soviet space. In addition, it was determined that all legal entities under public law, primarily the state, participate in private law relations on an equal basis with others. In this way, the Georgian Civil Code rejected the prevailing opinion in the Soviet and post-Soviet space that the state is a special subject of civil law. If the state exercises such special powers as law-making or expropriation of property, in this case it participates in the relationship as a legal entity under public law. Accordingly, under these conditions, its action is of a public law nature (and not civil law).[27] On May 25, 2006, a change was introduced in the Civil Code - the registration of non-commercial legal entities (associations and foundations) was completely transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the tax authority. In this way, the state and tax registration of legal entities were equated with each other, thus the registration acquired more a tax control function rather than a private legal meaning.[28]

The amendment directly affected legal entities as well. Until 2007, the Civil Code contained norms regarding the union and the foundation as non-commercial legal entities, but, according to the legislative changes of December 2006, these provisions were completely removed from the Code. The point is that before the changes, the legislator set different requirements for the union and the fund. For example, if the foundation of the union required the presence of at least five persons, the foundation was a legal entity that had no members. In addition, for the establishment of the fund, the founder was obliged to contribute property to the fund in the amount necessary to achieve the goal of the fund, etc. Since these restrictions on non-entrepreneurial legal entities were abolished by this legislative amendment, the existence of two organizational-legal forms of non-entrepreneurial legal entities - association and foundation - became meaningless. Accordingly, the need to divide non-entrepreneurial legal entities into associations and foundations was removed.[29] By removing the norms about them, the legislator took into account the single and very abstract concept of “non-entrepreneurial (non-commercial) legal entities” of a non-entrepreneurial legal entity. This was probably done under the influence of American law.[30] As a result, the Civil Code did not regulate the structure and authority of the governing bodies, the rights of the members, and the regulation of these issues was left to the discretion of the statute. Such a liberal approach to regulating non-commercial legal entities is questionable where there is no tradition of civil society and the legal culture is low. Under these circumstances, the legislator should try to provide a detailed legal regulation in order to have a clear and comprehensive idea of the rules of the game. Therefore, it was rightly pointed out in the legal literature that this part of the Civil Code should be revised again.[31]

In addition, in 2009, amendments were made to the Civil Code again, after which the registration of legal entities was transferred from the tax authority to the system of the Ministry of Justice.[32]

Here, since the investment legislation did not respond to the international practice and the requirements of the EU Association Agreement, the question of a fundamental amendment of the investment legislation was raised. The purpose of this change was to develop the capital market and bring the national legal framework closer to both international practice and European standards.[33] The preparation of the draft Law “On Investment Funds” and the promotion of the implementation of the regulatory framework of funds stipulated by this draft law led to amendments in the Civil Code. On July 14, 2020, Articles 49¹ and 49² were added to the Code,[34] which refer to the joint investment fund and the sub-fund of the investment fund. A joint investment fund is an organizational entity that is not a legal entity. A sub-fund of an investment fund is part of a mutual investment fund.

Structurally, then, the concept and form of transaction, voidable and void transactions, consent and representation in transactions are provided in Civil Code. This is followed by the scope and prerequisites for the exercise of the right, terms, and period of limitations. Legal amendments also affected transactions. For example, until May 8, 2012, Article 55 contained two parts: the first one related to the invalidity of a transaction if this transaction established a clear inconsistency between certain performance and the remuneration determined for this performance, and the transaction was concluded because one of the parties used market power or the severe condition of the party to the contract, or inexperience (naivety). As a result of the legislative amendment of May 8, 2012, the first part of Article 55 was canceled. The reason for this was that a new Law “On Free Trade and Competition” was passed, which took into account such deals. It is true that Article 6 of this law regulates cases of abuse of a dominant position, but, as noted in the legal literature, this does not justify the annulment of the first part of Article 55 of the Civil Code.[35]

Also noteworthy is the amendment related to the suspension of the term of limitation period. The fact is that the suspension of the term of limitation period of the claim in Article 132 of the Civil Code became possible on another basis, namely, the initiation of private mediation, which is provided for by the Law of Georgia “On Mediation”.[36]

Law of Things

Taking into account the traditional system, the second book in the Civil Code was devoted to the law of things, and the third book was devoted to the law of obligations. It was considered logical, first of all, to regulate the static existence of property goods in the law of things, and then to recognize them in dynamics with the norms of the law of obligation.[37]

Georgian commercial law begins with the concept of property. Also, a separate section is devoted to posession, which “shall be acquired by obtaining actual control of the object, coupled with the intention of doing so.” (Part 1 of Article 155 of the Civil Code).

The next section is about property rights. Georgian civil law was separated from Soviet law and in the post-Soviet space, it managed to overcome its influence effortlessly. The recognition of private property turned out to be the most important. Georgia was one of the first countries that rejected the forms of ownership and strengthened the normative formula of unity of ownership in the constitution, which became the basis for establishing a non-discriminatory ownership order.[38] This should undoubtedly be considered a great achievement of Georgian private law.

Neighborhood law was considered a part of Georgian collective law, the purpose of which is to resolve neighborhood disputes and ensure peaceful coexistence. The merit of the Civil Code is that the chapter of the neighborhood law contains the norms governing neighborhood relations and they are not fragmented. Such systematization of norms was odd to the law of the Soviet period.[39]

Until December 2015, the owner could submit a document confirming the ownership stipulated by the law and in this way prevent infringement of the ownership of the immovable object, and for this a court decision was not necessary. However, the law made an exception when the alleged trespasser submitted a written document confirming ownership, rightful possession and/or use of the immovable thing. On December 11, 2015, a legislative amendment was implemented, which restored the original version of the norm and removed the third part of the norm (the so-called “police eviction”, amendment of December 8, 2006). This is explained by the fact that the institution of police eviction contradicted the Constitution of Georgia, by which it is not allowed to enter someone else's residential apartment and other property, against owners’ will, as well as to search, unless there is a court decision on this or it was not an urgent necessity established by law. Thus, the mentioned legislative amendment of December 11, 2015 is welcome.[40]

Different rules for acquiring ownership rights to movable and immovable things are provided separately in the Civil Code. According to the 2019 legislative amendment,[41] immovable thing belonging to a child can be disposed of by his or her parent or other legal representative, taking into account the best interests of the child, based on the approval of the court. The same rule applies to movable property owned by the child, if this movable property is worth more than 1000 GEL. The point is that before this amendment, there was no mechanism of judicial control over the alienation of the property rights of minors. This, in turn, could not adequately protect the child's best interests. Accordingly, with this change, this provision of the Civil Code came into conformity with the Code on the Rights of the Child Rights.[42]

The legislative amendment affected the purchase of immovable thing. The point is that before the change of December 29, 2006, when purchasing real estate, the transaction had to be notarized and the buyer registered in the public register. According to the amendment of December 8, 2006, the purchase of real estate requires a written agreement between the parties and the registration of the buyer's ownership right in the public register (Part 1 of Article 183 of the Civil Code). This change was aimed at simplifying the process of registering an immovable thing in the public register without having to perform a notarial act with lower costs - introducing the “one window” principle. The performance of notarial activity by a notary was only of a formal nature, and he was referred to because the law imposed such a duty. The notary also performed this formality with the motivation of receiving a service fee, which caused heartache among persons. In addition, the process from the search for documents to the notary confirmation of the transaction required quite a lot of time. Accordingly, in this case, the performance of a notarial act (verification of the transaction) was excluded in a mandatory manner, and it acquired a voluntary character, that is, a notary was requested to confirm the signature on the transaction concluded by him. Thus, among the main principles of this change, it should be noted: a. The parties will sign the agreement directly in the registering body, where the recipient of the documentation will determine the identity of the parties and sign in his presence. From the moment the parties sign the transaction, the right to request registration of the immovable thing arises; b. The parties will not have to take an extract from the public register and a notice of seizure on the immovable thing, because this information will be on the spot in the electronic database, which will be verified by the authorized person of the registering body before receiving the documentation; c. The authorized person of the registration service is responsible only to determine whether the item is disposed of by its owner and to confirm the fact of signing the transaction. In this case, confirmation means receiving a document for registration (and not drawing up a special act). In this way, the legislator assigned responsibility for the contents of the transaction to the parties of the transaction.[43] In the legal literature, there is an opinion that this change threatened legal security and stability. Therefore, people are cautious and check real estate transactions again with notaries. In relation to registered pledges and mortgages, the rule of notarization of the contract was canceled, which can cause many problems.[44]

In addition, the concept and forms of association of homeowners were not established in the Civil Code. Also, the institution of homeowners’ association was considered ineffective, taking into account the way of conducting activities. Therefore, on July 11, 2007, the Law “On Homeowners’ Association” was adopted, the purpose of which was to provide effective legal conditions for the exploitation and development of their property by homeowners’ associations. This logically led to the cancellation of the norms governing apartment ownership in multi-storey buildings (Articles 210-232) in the Civil Code.[45]

Then, in the Civil Code we meet means of limited use of someone else's property: superficies, easement and usufruct. Until 2010, the term of superficies should not exceed 59 years according to the agreement of the parties. However, on April 27, 2010, a legislative amendment was introduced in the Civil Code[46] and this term was increased, in particular, it was determined that the term of superficies should not exceed 99 years (Part 3 of Article 233 of the Civil Code).

On June 30, 2005, the amendment affected the pledge. Before that, the wording contained only a reference to the “demand” and did not specify whether this demand was monetary or non-monetary (First part of Article 254). With the legislative amendment, it was clarified that a movable object or an intangible asset can be used as a means of securing both monetary and non-monetary claims. In addition, in the old edition, the legislator did not distinguish ownership and registered pledge, but based on the legislative amendment, these types of pledges were directly reflected in the Code.[47] Also, on December 29, 2006, an amendment was introduced in the Civil Code, which affected the pledge of a vehicle. The fact is that before that movable property, including a mechanical vehicle, was registered by the National Agency of Public Registry, although the legal restriction on this property could be registered at the same time by the internal affairs authorities of Georgia. Accordingly, the parallelism and duplication of the functions of state bodies was clearly visible. Therefore, with the legislative amendment, the corresponding structural unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs became the registering body of the pledge on mechanical vehicles (instead of the public registry).[48] Thus, the necessity of a notarized document and its registration in the LEPL - Service Agency of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia (Part 4 of Article 258 of the Civil Code) was established for the origination of a pledge on cars and other vehicles.

At the same time, the legislator added part 4 to Article 254 of the Civil Code, stating that a pledge securing a non-monetary claim is considered real only if it can be expressed in monetary form.

If the Civil Code determined the origination of a mortgage only when securing the obligation with an immovable thing, the law of December 30, 2008 “On the Public Registry” made it possible to secure the right to superficies with a mortgage (“On the Public Registry”, Article 11, Clause 1, Subsection “b”).[49]

In addition, until 2007, according to the first part of Article 300 of the Civil Code, the mortgaged immovable thing could be transferred to the property of the creditor (mortgagor) on the basis established by law, if it was directly stipulated in the mortgage agreement. As amended on December 25, 2013, this norm determined that if the owner of the mortgaged immovable thing delayed the satisfaction of the demand secured by the mortgage, the mortgaged immovable thing will be transferred to the property of the creditor (mortgagor) in the event that the creditor (mortgagor) and the owner of the mortgaged immovable thing make a joint application about this to the registering body.[50]

On April 1, 2010, part 31 of Article 302 of the Civil Code entered into force, according to which, by a written agreement between the creditor and the owner, the parties can determine that the transfer of the mortgaged immovable thing to the creditor and sale of it can be based on an enforcement order issued by a notary. At this time, the agreement of the parties requires mandatory notarization approval.

Law of Obligations

The next book in the Civil Code is devoted to law of obligations, which has a general and a private part. The general part of the law of obligations refers to the concept of obligation, the grounds for performance, breach, termination and others.

The Georgian legislator started the book of obligation law with the concept of obligation. Taking into account the experience of the German Civil Code (hereinafter - GCC), a similar idea was reflected in the first part of 316 of the Civil Code, according to which, “by virtue of an obligation the obligee shall be entitled to claim performance of a certain action from the obligor. Omission may also be regarded as performance.”[51]

The legislator took into account the principle of freedom of contract, which is mainly found in the form of freedom to conclude and define the content of the contract. However, at the same time, the freedom of contract may also include the freedom of the type and form of the contract. Despite the wide area of this freedom, it is limited by the rule of compulsion to enter into a contract, that is, “compulsion to contract”. Also, the freedom of contract is limited by the prohibition of concluding a contract. For example, according to the Labor Code, it is forbidden to enter into an employment contract with a minor for the implementation of works such as related to gaming business, night entertainment establishments, production, transportation and sale of erotic and pornographic products, pharmaceutical and toxic substances (Part 4 of Article 10 of the Labor Code). In addition, the freedom to determine the content of the contract is limited by imperative norms. The point is that, based on these norms, the conditions defined by the parties may not have legal force if their content contradicts the unwritten or written legal order; In addition, imperative norms impose certain restrictions and ensure that the process of concluding the contract meets the requirements of the law.[52]

According to the legislative amendment of December 8, 2006,[53] Article 323 of the Civil Code was amended and it was established that “a contract by which one party undertakes to transfer ownership of an immovable thing to another person or to acquire it shall be in written form.” Before this change, it was mandatory to notarize such a contract.

The private part of the law of obligations includes three sections: contract law, statutory obligations and torts.

Contractual law provides for sale, exchange, gift, lending, loan and other agreements. They were mostly untouched by changes, although there were several contracts whose governing norms were modified. For example, under the pre-2011 edition, according to the lease contract, the lessor was obliged to transfer certain property to the lessee for the period of time specified in the agreement, and the lessee was obliged to pay compensation at the established periodicity. The duty of the lessor was to produce or purchase the property provided for in the contract. Under the lease contract, the lessee may be obliged or given the right to purchase or rent the leased object after the expiration of the contract, unless the contract ends with full depreciation of the object. According to the draft law of August 19, 2011, the concept of “lease” is changed and it is clarified that the property is transferred to the lessee with or without the right to purchase this property. In addition, special conditions are established, according to which the lessee pays the fee at the appropriate periodicity. The subject of leasing cannot be money, securities, shares or stakes in an entrepreneurial society (Article 576 of the Civil Code). The draft law regulates in detail the rights of the lessee, the procedures for receiving the property are also defined.[54] Thus, in this way, the private legal regulations related to lease were improved and they were more fully formed.

Also, in 2018, the loan was affected by a legislative amendment, by which the parties were given the opportunity to take into account interest for the loan by agreement. The monthly interest rate determined by the agreement of the parties is necessary in the loan agreement secured by mortgage. In addition, the legislator established a limit that, based on the agreement the annual effective interest rate of the loan should not exceed 50% when determining the interest for the loan. The monthly interest rate specified in the agreement of the parties in the loan agreement secured by mortgage, including the costs related to the use of the loan (excluding the costs of notarizing the mortgage and registering the mortgage), should not be more than 1/12 of the 2.5 times of the arithmetic average of the previous calendar year’s market percentage rates of loans issued by commercial banks, published monthly on the official website of the National Bank of Georgia. The requirement determined by Part 2 of the same article applies to all types of loans, and according to Part 3 - to the annual amount of the monthly interest rate established by the agreement of the parties.[55]

In the Civil Code, the legislator actually placed statutory obligations and torts in separate sections, and thus did not combine torts in the circle of statutory obligations. However, torts also have a non-contractual nature. Therefore, it can be said that non-contractual obligations include statutory obligations and torts. In statutory obligations, the legislator combines shared rights, performing other's affairs without assignment, and conditions. Among the statutory obligations, one of the articles of shared rights was affected by a legislative amendment, according to which, if not directly established by law, the right of the other shareholders to the preferential purchase can be determined by the agreement of the parties during the sale of the share (Article 959 of the Civil Code).

As for torts, it includes two chapters: the first chapter refers to the general provisions of torts (Articles 992 to (including) 1008 of the Civil Code), and the second to torts arising from defective products (Articles 1009 to (including) 1016 of the Civil Code). In the general provisions of torts, the general tort (Article 992 of the Civil Code) is presented first, then - special torts.

The general rule of guilt responsibility (Article 992 of the Civil Code) is basically different from the German regulation. Article 823 of the CCG enumerates a number of personal goods and then indicates the application of the rule of compensating for damages in case of infringement of “other goods”. Similar to the French approach, the Georgian legislator does not list specific rights or goods in Article 992 of the Civil Code. According to articles 1382 and 1383 of the French Civil Code, the perpetrator must compensate the victim for the damage caused by the unlawful and guilty act.[56] Compared to the general tort, special torts have different characteristics. In addition, in the Civil Code there are cases of tort liability without guilt, when damage will be caused by using a source of increased danger. This is, for example, compensation for damage caused as a result of the operation of a motor vehicle (Article 999 of the Civil Code), tortious liability arising from a building (Article 1000 of the Civil Code), as well as compensation for damage caused by the collapse of a building (Article 1004 of the Civil Code).

At the same time, with the legislative amendment, the norms from Article 1009 to (including) Article 1016 of the Civil Code were changed. If under the old edition there was compensation for damage caused by a poor quality product, this time “poor product” was replaced by the term “defective product”. In doing so, the Georgian legislator shared the European Union directive and, under the influence of American terminology, highlighted in the product's defectiveness a danger that the victim does not reasonably expect and that threatens the customer’s life, health or property.[57] The introduction of the term “defective product” in the Georgian legislation is justified considering the content of the defectiveness.

Intellectual Property Law

Book 4 in the Civil Code is “Intellectual Property Law”, which includes copyright and industrial property law.

In 1999, the Law “On Copyright and Related Rights” was adopted, which led to the need to make changes to the Civil Code. In particular, in order to rule out the existence of parallel norms, in 1999 the norms regulating copyright property and personal non-property rights, as well as their adjacent rights, were completely removed from the Civil Code. Today, the 4^th book under the title “Intellectual Property Law” remains in the Civil Code, but it contains only reference norms on copyright law and the law regulating industrial property.[58] For example, Article 1017 of the Civil Code stipulates that the Law “On Copyright and Related Rights" protects copyright property or personal non-property rights and their related rights. The norms of industrial property (Articles 1000-1005) contain approximately similar instructions. Therefore, it is necessary to apply special norms regarding these issues.

It seems that Georgia has shared the experience of European countries. Namely, Germany and France do not provide a regulatory book of intellectual property in the civil code. From the beginning, this field was formed in the form of special normative acts. This issue is regulated in a similar way in Switzerland. Nevertheless, the Civil Code applies to individual relationships as well. For example, some copyright contracts in Germany are governed by general norms of contract law and case law.[59]

Family and Inheritance Law

According to the first article of the Civil Code of Georgia, the legislator brought family law into the system of civil law, when it declared private family relations based on the equality of persons as the subject of its regulation. Their features are not enough to create a separate code.[60] In this way, Georgia actually broke the 70-year Soviet tradition of separate legislative regulation of family law and returned it to the Civil Code.[61]

Marriage at an early age, as well as forced marriage, became a separate subject of discussion. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) called for the minimum age of marriage to be raised to 18. Accordingly, an amendment was made to the Civil Code and it was determined that during the transitional period, the marriage of a minor who reached the age of 17 was allowed by his will and only with the approval of the court, in the presence of such a respectable reason as the birth of a child. However, this provision has lost its force since January 1, 2017.[62] After that, the family law norms of the Civil Code were amended, according to which marriage is allowed from the age of 18, but in the general part of the Civil Code, there is still a rule on the possibility of marriage before the age of 18. Presumably, in this case, both the latest rule and the special norm should be applicable, and marriage should be allowed only from the age of 18.[63]

In addition, since 1998, the institution of fostering was founded in Georgia, when the president adopted a decree on state support measures for parentless children. The decree settled the issue of handing over children to guardians based on the contract. In 1999, the Law “On Adoption of Orphaned and Deprived Children” was adopted, which has been in force for eight years as a result of legislative amendments. Finally, this was followed by the adoption of the law “On Foster Care” on December 18, 2007, and on December 18, 2009, the separate laws “On Adoption and Foster Care” were combined into one act.[64] However, this law was repealed on May 4, 2017, when the Law “On Adoption and Foster Care” was adopted,[65] which regulated the relations related to adoption and foster care in more detail.

The sixth book in the Civil Code was devoted to inheritance law. It regulated the peculiarities of legal and testamentary inheritance. Inheritance law envisages the circle of five heirs by law:

The first row includes the children of the deceased, as well as the child of the deceased who was born after his death, spouse, parents (adoptive parents). The legislator equates adopted children and their descendants as heirs of the adopter or his relatives with the children of the adopter and their descendants; The second-line heirs are the sisters and brothers of the deceased; the third order, grandmother and grandfather, grandmother's parents and grandfather's parents, both from the mother's and father's side, are considered heirs by law; in the fourth row, are included uncles (mother's brother and father's brother), aunts and uncles; the heirs of the fifth order are cousins, and when they are not alive, then their children (Article 1336 of the Civil Code).[66] Also, it is important that if at least one of the heirs of the previous line is alive, the property of the deceased is not transferred to the heirs of the next line (Article 1337 of the Civil Code).

The Civil Code also recognizes inheritance by will. A natural person has the right to leave all or part of his property to one or more persons at the time of his death. In this case, the freedom of the will is not limited by the subjective composition of the heirs in the will, and the testator can name both a heir and a non-heir as a heir in the will (Article 1344 of the Civil Code). As for the testator, he must meet the legal requirements: the testator must be an adult, legally capable, who can reasonably judge his actions and clearly express his will when drafting a will (Article 1345 of the Civil Code).

Part 2 of Article 1357 of the Civil Code determined that during the notarial form, the will should be drawn up and signed by the testator and the will should be confirmed by a notary, and where there is no notary, the local self-governing body should be responsible for confirming the will. In 2020, this rule was changed and the possibility of notarization of a document by a local self-government body was removed from Part 2 of Article 1357, as the Code does not provide for this. In addition, at the same time as the adoption of the Code, a corresponding amendment was made to the Law of Georgia “On Notary”, in which the possibility of confirmation of a notarial document by a local self-government body is not defined.[67]

Other Branches of Private Law

Within the special branches of private law, several aspects of both labor law and corporate law are interesting.

The collapse of the Soviet regime led to bringing freedom to the fore, as a result of which the 1995 Constitution of Georgia recognized the freedom of labor, and in 1997 the Code of Labor Laws was amended and forced labor was rejected. In addition, special laws “On Professional Unions”, “On Collective Contracts and Agreements” and “On the Procedure for Settlement of Collective Labor Disputes” were adopted.[68] Accordingly, additional mechanisms for the protection of labor rights were created with their help.

However, in 2006, a new Labor Code was adopted, which repealed all the above-mentioned statutory acts, except for the Law on “Professional Unions”. If the labor contract contained a condition that would lead to the worsening of the employer's legal position compared to the Code, it was considered invalid by virtue of the Code of Labor Laws valid until 2006. The 2006 Labor Code was full of dispositional norms that gave labor relations’ subjects broad authority to define working conditions different from the Labor Code, even if it worsened the employee's situation. However, this did not comply with international labor standards. Therefore, more legislative changes to the Labor Code were needed. Based on the 2010 constitutional reform, the status of the Labor Code was changed and became an organic law. Also, in 2013, fundamental changes were made to the Labor Code, as a result of which labor relations were regulated in a new way. With this, Georgian labor law moved to a completely new stage of historical development.[69] For example, the maximum term of the fixed-term employment contract was also limited. In particular, if the labor contract is concluded for a period of more than 30 months, it is considered that a permanent labor contract is concluded. Also, when an employment contract is concluded several times, for a total period of more than 30 months, and there is a delay less than 60 days between said contracts, it is considered that a permanent employment contract is concluded[70] (Part 4 of Article 12 of the current edition of the Labor Code of Georgia).

Concluding consecutive employment contracts mean that the existing employment contract was extended immediately after its term expired or the next fixed-term contract was signed within sixty days after the expiration of the first employment contract. Thus, if the labor contract is to be considered permanent, the only basis for this cannot be the definition of its validity in the agreement for an indefinite period. In this case, the total duration of the relations between the parties and the periods between the dates of signing the agreements should be taken into account. Accordingly, when the terms of the signed contracts correspond to the duration established by the above-mentioned norm, then such an employment contract should be considered permanent.[71] Court practice also confirms this, that nowadays this norm is a very good way for the employee to protect his own interests. This was a step forward in favor of the interests of the employee.

The European Social Partnership Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work – European Directive 1999/70/EC sets strict limits for the legislation of the EU countries.[72] Contracts concluded for an indefinite period are and will be the main form of labor relations, although certain circumstances and relations require the conclusion of fixed-term labor contracts, which require consideration of the interests of the employer and the employee. Accordingly, the multiplicity and continuity of fixed-term contracts is the qualifying criterion for permanent labor relations. This brought the Labor Code closer to the requirements of the European Union in the field of employment and social policy, and created a good mechanism for preventing and controlling the abuse of fixed-term contracts.[73]

As for corporate law, it is worth noting that as a result of long-term discussions, Georgia took into account the European experience and, after 70 years of Soviet practice, in 1994 adopted the Law “On Entrepreneurs”.[74] However, important amendments were made to the law several times. The trend of separation of Georgian corporate law was clear in 1999 and 2005. For example, a member of the supervisory board could be re-elected in the future. In the opinion of some authors, the Georgian legislation in this sense shared the regulation of the “Corporation Law” of the USA. In 2008, significant legislative amendments were made, in particular, the corporate law system was two-tiered, and it was replaced by mixed, two-tiered and one-tiered corporate governance elements.[75]

On March 14, 2008, according to the amendments made to the Law of Georgia “On Entrepreneurs”, the regime of regulation of Georgian corporations was fundamentally changed. Before the amendment, the existence of a supervisory board in a joint-stock company was mandatory, while the existence of this body was optional regarding the LLC. With the amendments, the regulating norms of the LLC were drastically reduced. The legislator gave the business entities broad authority to regulate important issues with statute. After that, the reference to the supervisory board in the LLC disappeared altogether.[76]

In fact, the legislative vacuum of the previous edition on various aspects of intra-corporate relations and the external means of protecting the partners' interests often led the internal organizational issues to a dead end, and also complicated the legal assessment process in Georgia. This in itself created a nihilistic mood among investors, which had a negative impact on the country's economic situation. It became clear that it was necessary for Georgian law to approach the supranational corporate law of the European Union. Accordingly, in 2017, a working group was created, which, after painstaking work, presented a new edition of the Law “On Entrepreneurs” in 2020.[77] The fact is that before the adoption of the new law, entrepreneurs faced serious problems, because often the partners could no longer use the opportunity given to them by the law; the statutes were of a general nature and did not regulate a number of important issues, and the law did not provide for regulations on them. This led to the preparation of a draft of the new Law of Georgia “On Entrepreneurs”, the purpose of which was to strengthen the role of the law in business relations, more detailed regulation of intra-corporate relations and, along with the promotion of business freedom, increase transparency in this area. The draft law regulated the issues of conflict of interest, duty of good faith, expulsion/withdrawal of a partner from the entrepreneurial society, reorganization and liquidation of the society and other important changes. According to the draft law, dispositional norms were introduced, which will give the parties the opportunity to better regulate corporate relations, and in the event of individual issues not being regulated by the statute, there will be a corresponding norm, which will prevent a legislative vacuum. Accordingly, this approach takes into account modern standards, as well as the requirements of the Association Agreement concluded between the European Union and Georgia.[78] However, it can be seen that the Law “On Entrepreneurs” came closer to the US corporate law by introducing dispositional norms, which Germany does not allow.[79]

Conclusion

As the research revealed, the fundamental reforms implemented in Georgian private law affected both civil law and other special branches of private law as well. Their main goal was to get rid of Soviet regulations, approximation with European standards and refining national legislation. If we compare the current civil legislation with the situation before the 90s or even with the 1997 edition, it is a fact, with the legislative amendments, today's Georgian private law is very different from the Georgian private law that existed 25-30 years ago.

It was determined that Georgian private law was based on the German concept, according to which there is general private law (civil law) and special branches of private law. Civil law consists of six books: General Provisions, Law of Things, Law of Obligations, Intellectual Property Law, Family Law and Inheritance Law. As a result of legal reforms, the general provisions of civil law have become closer to the European ones, although here and there the influence of American law is also visible. For example, this can be said about the legislative amendment made in the area of freedom of expression.

Amendments in the law of things affected the way of purchasing immovable thing, as a result of which the written purchase agreement and the registration of the ownership right in the public register were considered sufficient. The determinant of this legislative amendment was mainly the simplification of acquisition of immovable thing, reduction of costs and bureaucratic mechanisms. However, as a result, practice has shown the need to protect legal security. Therefore, it is appropriate to revise the rule related to the form of acquisition of immovable thing.

Also, the norms regulating pledge and mortgage have been amended. The amendments affected both law of obligations and family and inheritance law. It became clear that Georgian civil legislation tried to share German approaches. However, in relation to some rules, other experiences were taken into account. For example, the structure of Article 992 of the Civil Code was formed in the same way as it is in France. At the same time, dispositional norms were introduced in the corporate law and thus approximated with the US approach. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the Europeanization of Georgian legislation was based mainly on the sharing of German experience. In the end, it can be said that the vast majority of amendments are progressive and were aimed at improving the legislation.

The modification of Georgian labor and entrepreneurial law is also noteworthy. In these areas too, special attention was paid to the protection of the principle of freedom. In fact, with the implemented legal reforms, Georgian private law incorporates European experience, which brought Georgian private law closer to European law. Thus, in the process of development of Georgian private law, the role of German colleagues is special in terms of both consultations and the creation of important handbooks. This greatly contributed to the development of judicial practice as well.

It is worth noting here that in recent decades, the tendency to unify legislation has gained an intense character, as a result of which it became possible to consider continental Europe as a single private legal space at the pan-European or EU level, as well as at the international level.[80] It is true that Georgian private law has gone through a long and interesting path, trying to get closer to European standards, but the process of unification of law had an impact on Georgia as well. Georgia is considered a member of the Continental European law family, and it is natural that it has taken its way to Europe. The legislative amendments and approaches of the last few years confirm that one or another element of European or international law is slowly entering Georgian private law. In this way, Georgia, as well, is involved in the process of unification of law.

Bibliography

Normative material and explanatory cards:

1. Association agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Commu­nity and their Member states, on the one hand, and Georgia, 27 June 2014 (In English)


2. Explanatory card “On making changes to the CCG”, 2020 On July 14 Law No. 6814. (In Georgian)


3. Law of Georgia of July 15, 2020 N6989; Explan­atory card “On making changes to the CCG” (registration No. 07-2/447/9, initiated option, ex­planatory card) (In Georgian)


4. Civil Code, legislative amendment, 2019 Law of September 20 N5013-I. (In Georgian)


5. Explanatory card on the Law N4956 of Septem­ber 18, 2019 “On Changes in the Civil Code”. (In Georgian)


6. Organic Law “Labor Code of Georgia”, Article 12, Clause 3-4, 17/12/2010, No. 4113-rs. (In Georgian)


7. Explanatory card “On Amendments to the Civil Code” Law No. 3315 of July 21, 2018. (In Georgian)


8. Explanatory card on Law No. 4649 of December 15, 2015 “On Changes in the Civil Code”. (In Geor­gian)


9. “On Adoption and Foster Care” Law, 2017 May 14, N746-II. (In Georgian)


10. Explanatory card “On Amendments to the Civil Code”, Law of March 20, 2015, N3339. (In Geor­gian)


11. Explanatory card “On the change in the Civil Code”, December 25, 2013, Law N1864. (In Geor­gian)


12. Draft Law “On Entrepreneurs” (Registration No. 07-3/29/10, initiated option, explanatory card). (In Georgian)


13. Explanatory card “On changes in the Civil Code”, Law N2978-I of April 27, 2010. (In Georgian)


14. Explanatory card “On Amendments to the Civil Code”, Law N1964 of November 3, 2009. (In Geor­gian)


15. Explanatory card on the Law N5919 of March 14, 2008 “On making additions to the CCG”. (In Geor­gian)


16. Explanatory card on the Law N5278 of July 11, 2007 “On Changes in the Civil Code”. (In Geor­gian)


17. On amendments to the Civil Code of Georgia, No. 07-2/248/6, 10.07.2006, explanatory card. (In Georgian)


18. The Law of December 18, 2007 on Amendments to the Civil Code of Georgia, No. 5624. (In Geor­gian)


19. “On Investment Funds” Law (Registration No. 07-2/453/9, initiated option, explanatory card). (In Georgian)


20. Explanatory card on the Law N3879-II of Decem­ber 8, 2006 “On changes in the Civil Code”. (In Georgian)


21. Explanatory card on the Law No. 3967 of Decem­ber 14, 2006 “On Changes in the Civil Code”. (In Georgian)


22. SSC, legislative amendment of December 8, 2006, N3879-II. (In Georgian)


23. “On Public Registry” Law, 2008 December 19, N820-II. (In Georgian)


24. Explanatory card on the Law N4310 dated De­cember 29, 2006 “On changes in the Civil Code”. (In Georgian)


25. Explanatory card “On making changes to the CCG” (No. 07-2/343/7, initiated option, explana­tory card). (In Georgian)

Court decisions:

1. Decision N3k/461-01 of June 20, 2001 of the Civil, Entrepreneurial and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (In Georgian)


2. Decision No. 132-475-07 of the Civil, Entrepre­neurial and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Su­preme Court of Georgia dated June 26, 2007. (In Georgian)


3. Decision No. As-1237-2021 of the Civil Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia dated February 24, 2022. (In Georgian)


4. Decision No. As-785-2021 of the Civil Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia dated November 12, 2021. (In Georgian)

Scientific literature:

1. Bichia, M., (2022). Several Legal Peculiarities of the Regulation of Business Environment in Ger­many, Journal “Law and World”, Vol. 8, Issue 1, p. 56. (In English)


2. Brouwer R., (2018). On the Meaning of ‘System’ in the Common and Civil Law Traditions: Two Ap­proaches to Legal Unity, 34(1), Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, p. 53. (In English)


3. Chanturia, L., (2010). Die Europäisierung des georgeschen Rechts – bloßer Wunsch oder große Herausdorff? In Rabels Zeitschrift, Band 74, Heft 1, S. 154-181. (In German)


4. Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, Official Journal L 175, 10/7/1999. (In English)


5. Dainow, J. (1966). The Civil Law and the Common Law: Some Points of Comparison, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 15 (3), pp. 424- 425. (In English)


6. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Handbook on European data protection, Bel­gium, 2014, pp. 118-119. (In English)


7. Kennedy, D. (2002). The Politics and Methods of Comparative Law, The Common Core of Europe­an Private Law, Essays on the Project, Mattei U., Bussani M. (eds.), Hague, p. 143. (In English)


8. Hopt K. J., Reuter D. (2001). Stiftungsrecht in Europa: Eine Einführung, Stifrungsrecht und Stiftungsrechtsreform in Deutschland, den Member States der Europȁischen Union, der Schweiz, Liechtenstein und den USA, Heymanns, S. 2-4. (In German)


9. Kötz, H. (1993). Europȁische Juristenausbildung, Zeitschrift für Europȁisches Privatrecht, 1, S. 268 ff. (In German)


10. Perner St., Spitzer, M., Kodek, G. (2014). Bürger­liches Recht, Lernen, Ȕben, Wissen, 4. Auflage, Wien, S. 4. (In German)


11. Rüthers B., Stadler, A. (2009). Allgeimener Teil des BGB, 16.Auflage, Beck, München, Rn.2 ff. (In German)


12. Zimmermann, R. (2006). Die Europäisierung des Privatrechts und die Rechtsvergleichung, Schrif­tenreihe der Juristischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, Heft 179, Berlin, 2006, S. 19, 47. (In German)


13. BVerfGE 123, 267 ff. (In German)


14. Kniper, Р., (2005), Law and history, translation from German Z. M. Nogaibai, Publishing Association “Nomos”, Baden-Baden/Almaty, 205. (in Russian).


15. Batlidze, G., (2015), Liability caused by a guilty act in tort law, IV, Journal of “Georgian Business Law Review”, pp. 24-25. (In Georgian)


16. Bakakuri, N., Gelteri, M., Tsertsvadze G., Jughe­li, G. (2019). Corporate Law, Tbilisi, p. 19, 73. (In Georgian)


17. Bichia, M., (2020). Legal Obligational Relations, 3-nd ed., Tbilisi, pp. 515-517. (In Georgian)


18. Bichia, M., (2020). Structural Analysis of Article 181 of Civil Code of Georgia, “Justice and Law”, N1, pp. 65-66. (In Georgian)


19. Bichia, M., (2018). Legal Obligational Relations (Handbook), 2-nd ed., Tbilisi, pp. 345-346, 351- 352. (In Georgian)


20. Bichia, M., (2017). The Georgian Model of Com­pensation of Non-property damage for Vio­lating Personal Rights in Line with European standards, “Journal of Law”, №1, pp. 23-25. (In Georgian)


21. Bichia, M., (2012). Protection of personal life ac­cording to civil law of Georgia, Tbilisi, pp. 180- 181, 330. (In Georgian)


22. Burduli, I., Makharoblishvili, G. and others, (2021). Handbook of corporate law, Tbilisi, pp. 46-47. (In Georgian)


23. Burduli, I., (2012). Modern Georgian corpo­rate law (brief review), in the book: Roman Shengelia’s Jubilee Collection: Problems of Law, Tbilisi, p. 227. (In Georgian)


24. Kereselidze D., (2007). Influence of European Codifications and International Instruments of Unification of Legislation on the Development of Georgian Private Law, Georgian Law Review, Special Edition, p. 8. (In Georgian)


25. Kintsurashvili, T., Ramishvili, L., Kotetishvili, I., (2005). Freedom of Expression, Volume 2, Tbilisi, p. 20. (In Georgian)


26. Kalichava, K., (2017). Europeanization of Geor­gian administrative law in terms of European in­tegration - past experience and future perspec­tives, “Journal of Law”, N2, 289. (In Georgian)


27. Khubua, G. (2004). Theory of Law, Tbilisi, p. 132. (In Georgian)


28. Jorbenadze, S. (1994). The main problems of the future civil code of the Republic of Georgia, law reform in Georgia, Tbilisi, p. 139. (In Georgian)


29. Chanturia, L. (2017). Commentary on the Civ­il Code, Article 55, B. I, Tbilisi, pp. 324-325. (In Georgian)


30. Chanturia, L. (2011). General part of civil law, Tbi­lisi, pp. 14-15. (In Georgian)


31. Chanturia, L., Ninidze, T. (2002). Commentary on the Law “On Entrepreneurs”, 3rd edition, Tbilisi, p. 3. (In Georgian)


32. Ninidze, T. (2013). The structure of the first arti­cle of the Civil Code, in the collection of articles dedicated to the 80th anniversary of Akaki La­bartkava (ed. Chanturia L.), Tbilisi, pp. 167-169. (In Georgian)


33. Zarandia, T. (2016). Fundamentals of property law, Tbilisi, pp. 207-217. (In Georgian)


34. Zarandia, T. (2018). Neighborhood law and the content of civil tolerance obligation in Georgian law, “Journal of Law”, N2, p. 6, 17. (In Georgian)


35. Zoidze, B. (2016) Evolution of the right to property in Georgian law, a collection of reports of the international conference of November 5-6, 2015: “Property and legal stability: transforma­tion of the concept of property”, Tbilisi, p. 107. (In Georgian)


36. Zoidze, B. (2005). Reception of European private law in Georgia, Tbilisi, pp. 15, 18, 182, 276. (In Georgian)


37. Totladze, L. (2018). Commentary on the Civil Code, Article 172, B. 2, Tbilisi, p. 80. (In Georgian)


38. Shotadze, T. (2011). Mortgage as a means of se­curing bank credit, doctoral dissertation, Tbilisi, pp. 178-179. (In Georgian)


39. Svanadze, G. (2014). Freedom of contract, in the book: “Contract Law”, ed. Jugel G., Tbilisi, pp. 102-105. (In Georgian)


40. Chanturia, L. (2011). General part of civil law, chapter, Tbilisi, pp. 6, 20-21, 30-31, 33-38, 43. (In Georgian)


41. Shengelia, R., Shengelia, E. (2011). Family Law: Theory and Practice, 2nd Edition, Tbilisi, pp. 395- 397. (In Georgian)


42. Shvelidze, Z. (2018), Chapter one, In: “Georgian labor law and international labor standards, ed. Bakakuri N., Tordia T., Shvelidze Z., Tbilisi, 2018, pp. 22-23. (In Georgian)


43. Kardava, E. (2018). Reform of the Georgian labor law in terms of the requirements of the Europe­an integration and association agreement, doc­toral dissertation, Tbilisi, p. 103, 106. (In Geor­gian)

Footnotes

[1] Kennedy, D., (2002). The Politics and Methods of Comparative Law, The Common Core of European Private Law, Essays on the Project, Mattei U., Bussani M. (eds.), Hague, p. 143.

[2] in detail see Chanturia, L., (2010). Die Europäisierung des georgischen Rechts – bloßer Wunsch oder große Herausforderung? In Rabels Zeitschrift, Band 74, Heft 1, S. 154-181.

[3] Zimmermann, R., (2006). Die Europäisierung des Privatrechts und die Rechtsvergleichung, Schriftenreihe der Juristischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, Heft 179, Berlin, S. 47.

[4] Kötz, H., (1993). Europȁische Juristenausbildung, Zeitschrift für Europȁisches Privatrecht, 1, 1993, 268 ff.

[5] Zimmermann, R., (2006). Die Europäisierung des Privatrechts und die Rechtsvergleichung, Schriftenreihe der Juristischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, Heft 179, Berlin, S. 19.

[6] Khubua, G. (2004). Theory of Law, Tbilisi, p. 132.

[7] Dainow, J., (1966). The Civil Law and the Common Law: Some Points of Comparison, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 15 (3), p. 424-425.

[8] Brouwer, R., (2018). On the Meaning of ‘System’ in the Common and Civil Law Traditions: Two Approaches to Legal Unity, Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 34(1), p. 53.

[9] BVerfGE 123, 267 ff.; Kalichava, K., (2017). Europeanization of Georgian Administrative Law in Terms of European Integration - Past Experience and Future Perspectives, “Journal of Law”, N2, 289.

[10] Chanturia, L., (2011). General Part of Civil Law, Tbilisi, pp. 20-21.

[11] Zoidze, B., (2005). Reception of European Private Law in Georgia, Tbilisi, p. 15-18.

[12] Jorbenadze, S., (1994). The Main Problems of the Future Civil Code of the Republic of Geor­gia, Law Reform in Georgia, Tbilisi, p. 139.

[13] Chanturia, L., (2000). Introduction to the General Part of Civil Law of Georgia, Tbilisi, pp. 33-34.

[14] Perner, St., Spitzer, M., Kodek, G., (2014). Bürgerliches Recht, Lernen, Ȕben, Wissen, 4. Au­flage, Wien, 4.

[15] Rüthers, B., Stadler, A., (2009). Allgeimener Teil des BGB, 16.Auflage, Beck, München, Rn.2 ff. (in German); Chanturia, L., (2011). General part of civil law, Tbilisi, pp. 14-15.

[16] Decision N3k/461-01 of June 20, 2001 of the Civil, Entrepreneurial and Bankruptcy Cham­ber of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

[17] Decision No. 132-475-07 of the Civil, Entrepreneurial and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Su­preme Court of Georgia dated June 26, 2007.

[18] Chanturia, L., (2011). General Part of Civil Law, Tbilisi, p. 43.

[19] Civil Code of Georgia, Legislative Amendment, Law of March 20, 2015, N3339.

[20] Bichia, M., (2018). Legal Obligational Relations (Handbook), 2nd ed., Tbilisi, p. 351-352.

[21] Ninidze, T., (2013). The Structure of the First Article of the Civil Code, in the Collection of Articles Dedicated to the 80th Anniversary of Akaki Labartkava (ed. Chanturia L.), Tbilisi, pp. 167-169.

[22] see Bichia, M., (2017). The Georgian Model of Compensation of Non-Property Damage for Violating Personal Rights in Line with European standards, “Journal of Law”, №1, pp. 23- 25; Bichia, M., (2012). Protection of Personal Life according to Georgian Civil Law, Tbilisi, p. 330.

[23] Kintsurashvili, T., Ramishvili, L., Kotetishvili, I., (2005). Freedom of Expression, Volume 2, Tbilisi, p. 20.

[24] see Bichia, M., (2012). Protection of Personal Life, Accordance with the Civil Law of Geor­gia, Tbilisi, pp. 180-181.

[25] On the Law N5919 of March 14, 2008 “On Amendments to the Civil Code” (explanatory card).

[26] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Handbook on European data protection, Belgium, 2014, 118-119; Bichia, M., (2020). Structural Analysis of Article 181 of Civil Code of Georgia, “Justice and Law”, N1, pp. 65-66.

[27] Chanturia, L., (2011). General part of civil law, Tbilisi, pp. 30-31.

[28] Ibid., 36.

[29] Explanatory card “On Amendments to the Civil Code”, Law No. 3967 of December 14, 2006.

[30] Hopt, K. J., Reuter, D., (2001). Stiftungsrecht in Europa: Eine Einführung, Stifrungsrecht und Stiftungsrechtsreform in Deutschland, den Geschäfts der Europȁischen Union, der Schweiz, Liechtenstein und den USA, Heymanns, S. 2-4.

[31] Chanturia, L., (2011). General Part of Civil Law, Tbilisi, p. 37.

[32] Amendments to the Civil Code of Georgia, Law N1964 of November 3, 2009.

[33] Law “On Investment Funds” (registration No. 07-2/453/9, initiated option, explanatory card).

[34] Explanatory card “On making changes to the CCG” 2020 On July 14 Law No. 6814.

[35] Chanturia, L., (2017). Commentary on the Civil Code, Article 55, Book I, Tbilisi, pp. 324-325.

[36] Explanatory card on Law No. 4956 of September 18, 2019 “On Amendments to the Civil Code”.

[37] Kniper, R., (2005). Law and History, translated from German Z. M. Nogaybay, Baden- Baden/Almaty, p. 105 (in Russian); Zoidze, B., (2016). Evolution of the Right to Property in Georgian law, a collection of reports of the international conference of November 5-6, 2015: “Property and Legal Stability: Transformation of the Concept of Property”, Tbilisi, p. 107.

[38] see Zoidze, B., (2016). Evolution of the Right to Property in Georgian law, a collection of reports of the international conference of November 5-6, 2015: “Property and Legal Sta­bility: Transformation of the Concept of Property”, Tbilisi, pp. 107-120; Zarandia, T., (2016). Fundamentals of Commercial law, Tbilisi, pp. 207-217.

[39] Zarandia, T., (2018). Neighborhood Law and the Content of Civil Tolerance Obligation in Georgian law, “Journal of Law”, N2, p. 6, 17.

[40] Totladze, L., (2018). Commentary on the Civil Code, Article 172, Book 2, Tbilisi, p. 80.

[41] Civil Code, legislative amendment, 2019 Law of September 20 N5013-I.

[42] Explanatory card on the Law No. N5013-I of February 13, 2019 “On Amendments to the Civil Code”.

[43] Explanatory card on the Law No. 3879-II of December 8, 2006 “On Amendments to the Civil Code”.

[44] Chanturia, L., (2011). General Part of Civil Law, Tbilisi, p. 38.

[45] Explanatory card on the Law N5278 of July 11, 2007 “On Amendments to the Civil Code”.

[46] Law N2978-I of April 27, 2010 “On Amendments to the Civil Code”.

[47] Chanturia, L., (2011). General Part of Civil Law, Tbilisi, pp. 34-35.

[48] Explanatory card on the Law N4310 of December 29, 2006 “On Amendments to the Civil Code”.

[49] Law “On Public Registry”, 2008 December 19, N820-II.

[50] On “Amendment to the Civil Code”, December 25, 2013, N1864; Shotadze, T., (2011). Mort­gage as a Means of Securing Bank Credit, doctoral dissertation, Tbilisi, 2011, pp. 178-179.

[51] Zoidze, B., (2005). Reception of European Private Law in Georgia, Tbilisi, p. 276.

[52] Svanadze, G., (2014). Freedom of contract, in: “Contract Law”, ed. Jugel G., Tbilisi, pp. 102- 105.

[53] Law N3879-II of December 8, 2006 “On Amendments to the Civil Code”.

[54] Explanatory card on the Law No. 5119 of October 13, 2011 “On Amendments to the Civil Code”.

[55] Explanatory card on the Law No. 3315 of July 21, 2018 “On Changes in the Civil Code”.

[56] Compare Batlidze, G. (2015), Liability Caused by a Guilty Act in Tort Law, IV, Journal of “Georgian Business Law Review”, pp. 24-25.

[57] See Bichia, M., (2020). Legal Obligational Relations, 3-nd ed., Tbilisi, pp., 515-517.

[58] Chanturia, L., (2011). General Part of Civil law, Tbilisi, pp. 33-34.

[59] Zoidze, B., (2005). Reception of European Private Law in Georgia, Tbilisi, pp. 183-184.

[60] Zoidze, B., (2005). Reception of European Private Law in Georgia, Tbilisi, p. 182.

[61] Chanturia, L., (2011). General Part of Civil Law, Tbilisi, p. 6.

[62] Explanatory card on the Law No. 4649 of December 15, 2015 “On Amendments to the Civil Code”.

[63] see Bichia, M., (2018). Legal Obligational Relations, 2-nd ed., Tbilisi, pp. 345-346.

[64] Shengelia, R., Shengelia, E., (2011). Family Law: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed., Tb., pp. 395- 397.

[65] Law “On Adoption and Foster Care”, 2017 May 14, N746-II.

[66] Law of Georgia of December 18, 2007, No. 5624, “On Amendments to the Civil Code”.

[67] Law of Georgia of July 15, 2020 N6989; “On making changes to the CCG” (registration No. 07-2/447/9, initiated option, explanatory card)

[68] Shvelidze Z., Chapter One, In: “Georgian Labor Law and International Labor Standards, ed. Bakakuri N., Tordia T., Shvelidze Z., Tbilisi, 2018, p. 22.

[69] Shvelidze Z., Chapter One, book: “Georgian Labor Law and International Labor Standards, ed. Bakakuri N., Tordia T., Shvelidze Z., Tbilisi, 2018, pp. 22-23.

[70] Organic Law “Labor Code of Georgia”, Art. 12, Paragraphs 3-4, 17/12/2010, No. 4113-RS.

[71] Decision No. As-1237-2021 of the Civil Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia of February 24, 2022; Decision No. As-785-2021 of the Civil Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia dated November 12, 2021.

[72] Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, Official Journal L 175, 10/7/1999.

[73] Kardava, E., (2018). Reform of the Georgian Labor Law in Terms of the Requirements of the European Integration and Association Agreement, doctoral dissertation, Tbilisi, p. 103, 106.

[74] Chanturia, L., Ninidze, T., (2002), Commentary on the Law “On Entrepreneurs”, 3rd edition, Tbilisi, p. 3.

[75] Bakakuri, N., Gelteri, M., Tsertsvadze, L., Jugheli, G., (2019). Corporate Law, Tbilisi, p. 19. (in Georgian); About Corporate System of Management in Germany See Bichia, M., (2022). Several Legal Peculiarities of the Regulation of Business Environment in Germany, Jour­nal “Law and World”, Vol. 8, Issue 1, p. 56.

[76] Bakakuri, N., Gelteri, M., Tsertsvadze, L., Jugheli, G., (2019). Corporate Law, Tbilisi, p. 73.

[77] Burduli, I., Makharoblishvili, G. and others, (2021). Handbook of Corporate Law, Tbilisi, pp. 46-47.

[78] “On Entrepreneurs” draft law (Registration No. 07-3/29/10, initiated option, explanatory card).

[79] Burduli, I., (2012). Modern Georgian Corporate Law (brief review), in the book: Roman Shengelia’s Jubilee Collection: Problems of Law, Tbilisi, p. 227.

[80] Kereselidze, D., (2007). Influence of European Codifications and International Instruments of Unification of Legislation on the Development of Georgian Private Law, Georgian Law Review, Special Edition, p. 8.