THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM IN GEORGIA: (In terms of a mixed system of enforcement and protection of basic rights of persons participating in theenforcement proceedings)

Abstract

Timely and efficient enforcement of court decisions is the most important process for any legal state since the power of the law lies in its enforcement. The effectiveness of the enforcement process may have a significant impact on the development of the socio-economic situation of the country, as well as positively affect the level of public confidence in the court. The effectiveness of the enforcement process largely depends on a well-functioning enforcement system; therefore, it must have maximum independence, and flexibility and, at the same time, be focused on the protection of basic human rights and freedoms. Its organizational arrangement and the levers of enforcement implementation, the rights and duties of the persons participating in the enforcement proceedings, as well as the scope of authority of the bailiff as an enforcement entity in the process of enforcement proceedings are important, along with this, the existence of the private bailiff institution in Georgian enforcement law is of the utmost importance. Based on the foregoing, the article reviews the development of the enforcement system in Georgia, the structure of the National Bureau of Enforcement and its powers and the peculiarities of the work of a private bailiff. The importance of the principle of protection of balance and proportionality between the persons participating in the enforcement proceedings is also reviewed and the author’s vision regarding each issue is presented to eliminate the gaps in practice.

Keywords: Structure, Enforcement, System, Protection

Introduction

The enforcement of valid court decisions is an act of exercising supreme authority in a modern, legal state. Accordingly, the enforcement system in the country should be efficient and independent as much as possible and, most importantly, there should always be a red line on the protection of basic human rights and freedoms.

The power of the law lies in its enforcement: The right to request the enforcement of a legally binding decision is equal to the right of a person to apply to the court to protect his/her rights and freedoms. The level of public confidence in the courts is of great importance in a legal state, which obviously cannot be achieved if the decisions made by the court are not implemented quickly and flexibly.[1]

As in other European countries, sharing the practice of the European Court of Human Rights by national courts, analyzing precedential decisions and integrating national law with European law is also of particular importance in Georgia. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly discussed the importance of effective enforcement of decisions. In one precedent case (Hornsby v Greece), the Court explained that “the enforcement of any decision made by a court shall be regarded as an integral part of the “judicial process”.[2] As for the enforcement process itself, it must be transparent, and several basic principles must be respected so that no party’s interests are harmed and/or vice versa: no one is given an unjustified advantage. In another high-profile case “IZA LTD and Makrakhidze V. Georgia” the assessment of the Strasbourg Court was as follows: - “In connection with the fact, that the state failed to ensure the enforcement of the binding decision within four years, there was a violation of the right under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights“.[3] The Court reiterates that the right to a fair trial includes the right to enforce a final judgment. This right would be unrealistic if the national legal system of the High Contracting Party made it possible for a final judgment in force to remain void to the detriment of one party.[4]

One of the most important decisions in this regard was also Kyrtatos v. Greece - The applicants won a case concerning local planning decisions affecting their property. The local government authorities avoided the execution of the court decision for more than seven years, thus they effectively lost the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any complaint related to the delay in the execution of a legally binding judgment is considered by the Strasbourg Court not in the context of “justice” but about the “right to a judicial review”, and to determine whether the essence of the right has been violated by the non-enforcement of the court decision, such criteria as the complexity of the case, specific circumstances, behaviour of the parties, etc. are taken into account.

Based on its practice, the European Court of Human Rights constantly emphasizes that the principle of the rule of law can be implemented only if effective enforcement of the decisions made by the court and other competent bodies is guaranteed.

The execution of decisions should ensure the restoration and protection of the rights of entities participating in legal processes, as well as the gradual development of legal, economic and other types of relations between states both at the internal state and international levels. In connection with the fact that “Compulsory execution” in itself implies the use of force and interference with the basic rights of a person (a party to enforcement proceedings and/or a third party) - it is necessary that the existing enforcement system in the country makes it possible to protect the interests of the parties proportionately during enforcement processes.[5]

In one of the precedent decisions, Apostol v. Georgia, which referred to the meaning of enforcement, the European Court of Human Rights explained: “The jurisdiction of the court is not merely a theoretical right to have its final decision recognized, but this right also implies the enforcement of the final decision”.[6]

Enforcement proceedings are organized differently in all states, which is due to the legal traditions and system of each country, however, in any case, the national legislation must be consistent with the main international standards or principles established in the field of enforcement. In connection with the fact that the enforcement process has a great role in the economic, social and many other aspects of the development of the country, the state needs to share the best and most sophisticated practices of the enforcement system of foreign countries. The system should be focused on the protection of human rights as much as possible, regardless of which side of the proceedings a person represents: a creditor, a debtor or a third party.

Based on the foregoing, this article aims to review the existing enforcement system in the country, the main enforcement institutions and the basic principles that should be present as a red line in the entire process of enforcement proceedings. The protection of the proportionality principle is especially important, which means that the interests of any of the parties participating in the enforcement proceedings will not be harmed, and/or any of them will not be given an unjustified advantage.

1. Development of the Enforcement System in Georgia

Throughout the centuries as in the legal systems of other countries of the world, in Georgia too, proper importance was not given to the execution of legally binding decisions and other acts made by the court and other authorized bodies, however, in recent years, the mentioned approach has changed radically, and as of today, the execution of decisions has already taken one of the important places among legal processes. “Along with setting the XXI century, the economy is in decline and when the economy is going through hard times, clients need more than ever to collect debt and enforce judgments to keep their businesses viable”.[7]

Justice in Georgia is implemented by the judicial authority - it issues a decision on behalf of the country. The issuance of the said decision itself implies the mandatory nature of its execution. The right to a “Fair Trial” includes, not only the right to apply to the court and decide the case impartially but also the right to its proper execution. Non-enforcement of the court decision is equal to a violation of the right to appeal to the court.

A brief historical excursus of the development of the enforcement system in Georgia is as follows: Even in ancient, there were various enforcement mechanisms of court decisions in Georgian law which represented a guarantee of the protection of the rights of the parties involved in the proceedings.[8]

In the last century, the first signs of the formation of the enforcement system in the country are related to the period when the new civil code was enacted, as a result of which the enforcement service was created in the Ministry of Justice. The abovementioned service had a formal character and obviously, the scope of independence that this service had as a legal entity was also formal. In such conditions, it was certainly unnecessary to talk about the flexibility and efficiency of the system.[9]

Since 2001, the Enforcement Service has been transformed into the Enforcement Department, and several significant changes have been made in the field of enforcement, both in terms of legislative and structural arrangements. The abovementioned process had rather a short-term duration and did not have the same successful development as the beginning, however, despite this, it was the first and quite successful attempt to develop the Georgian enforcement system. After the creation of the enforcement department, several years were an age of absolute immobility for the enforcement system. Neither legislative nor organizational changes were made.[10]

Finally, in 2008, the department under the governance of the Ministry of Justice was established as a legal entity under public law - the National Bureau of Enforcement and is still operating in this form.

2. Enforcement System and Legislation of Georgia

As stated above, in Georgia, the main normative act in the field of enforcement is the Law of Georgia On Enforcement Proceedings.[11] However, because enforcement proceedings are a complex institution that combines the norms of civil, civil procedural, administrative, tax and other branches of law, accordingly, enforcement legislation will obviously not be limited only by the Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The abovementioned law has been in force since 1999 and it regulates the relations regarding the compulsory execution of the acts adopted by the court and other bodies. Apart from establishing the rights and duties of the parties to the proceedings, the legal bases of the executive’s activities, the procedure for appointing and dismissing him/her, rights and duties, guarantees of social and legal protection, and others are also defined by the law.

3. National Bureau of Enforcement

The Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings” determines that the LEPL National Bureau of Law Enforcement carries out the enforcement of decisions made by courts and other authorized bodies in Georgia, which represents a Legal Entity Under Public Law under the governance of the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice of Georgia monitors the activities of the National Enforcement Bureau. The regulation of the Bureau is approved by the Minister of Justice. The appointment/dismissal of the chairman of the National Bureau of Enforcement is also within the competencies of the Minister of Justice.[12]

The National Bureau of Enforcement carries out its activities through structural units and territorial bodies - enforcement bureaus, which are located throughout the territory of Georgia according to regions. The Enforcement Bureau in each region is chaired by the head of the Bureau, who is appointed and dismissed by the chairman of the national enforcement bureau in agreement with the Minister of Justice.

Enforcement bureaus carry out their activities throughout the territory of the country in accordance with the Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings”, other normative acts and internal regulations.

In addition, the National Bureau of Enforcement includes the following structural units:

• Insolvency Case Management Office


• Enforcement Police


• Legal Office


• Economics Office


• International Relations and Project Management Office


• Proceedings Office


• Internal Controls and Auditing Office


• Assessment Office


• Parties Interest Protection and Mediation Office


• Logistics Office;


• Simplified Case Management Department


• Human Resource Development and Management Office.[13]

4. Institute of private bailiff in the Enforcement System of Georgia

According to the legislation, the authority to carry out compulsory enforcement actions is also granted to a private bailiff, in addition to the National Bureau of Enforcement in Georgia, who carries out enforcement activities based on the license issued by the National Bureau of Enforcement. The institution of the private bailiff was introduced into the Georgian enforcement legislation based on the recommendations issued by the European Union and their technical and material support.[14] However, because the said institution was completely alien to the Georgian reality, it was expected from the beginning that many flaws and shortcomings would appear in the process of its implementation. Exactly such a grounded assumption conditioned it, that to avoid expected errors, the competence of private bailiff was somewhat limited and several issues were defined, to the implementation of which private bailiff would not have access and the mentioned issues would remain only in the exclusive competence of the legal entity under public law - the National Enforcement Bureau.[15]

It should be noted that, unlike a public bailiff, a private bailiff does not have the right to perform all actions provided for by the Georgian legislation “On Enforcement Proceedings” and to accept all categories of proceedings.[16] It is this that raises the main question mark regarding how the given fact can be evaluated: Does the mentioned circumstance represent the advantage of the private bailiff and the possibility for him/her to receive additional benefits from a material point of view. It is ambiguous, which sector is in an advantageous position and from what point of view, an unequivocal approach has not been established in this regard, and arguments continue to be actively contested to this day.

A private bailiff is a natural person of a free profession, performing public authority-enforcement activities based on the legislation, and is considered an entrepreneur in matters of taxation. He/she performs his/her authority unlimitedly on the entire territory of Georgia, just like the National Bureau of Enforcement.[17] 

Since its introduction, the institution of private bailiff has been very effective: Statistics revealed, that appeal by such large creditors, such as the largest financial institutions operating in Georgia, was quite high. However, despite all this, the state gradually began to impose several practical and legal barriers to the institution of a private bailiff, for example, as a result of legislative changes implemented in 2010, private bailiffs were prohibited from accepting cases of the category where the demand exceeded 500,000 GEL and many others. The abovementioned type of restrictions did not apply to public officials, and they could conduct any category of business without any restrictions.

As a result of analyzing the examples given above, it seems at first glance that the private bailiff is “less privileged” compared to the public one, since the legislator imposes different legal and practical barriers on him/her, restricts the authority to perform certain actions, however, a question arises: Which bailiff is in an advantageous position? To what degree can the “restrictions” imposed by the legislator on the private bailiff be considered a barrier? Based on the practice, it can be said, that the private bailiff has limited authority to execute those categories of cases, the proceedings of which are characterized by special difficulty (for example, alimony and eviction category cases), and those cases, which the private bailiff has the right to perform, can bring more benefits from a material point of view, than, for example, the category, which is conventionally represented: administrative fine, case of alimony category and others.

Another important factor is that, unlike the public bailiff, the private bailiff has the opportunity to decide for himself/herself even from the categories of cases listed above, in a specific case, based on the creditor’s appeal, which case he/she will accept in the proceedings and which one he/she will not, while the public bailiff, who works in the National Bureau of Enforcement, is completely deprived of this opportunity, and any category of case is automatically assigned to him/her. The public bailiff does not have the opportunity to choose which category of cases he/she will accept for execution in the proceedings and which he/she will refuse (except for the exceptions provided by law).

As for the number of cases, neither the law nor the regulations of the Bureau determine the maximum number of cases that may be assigned to one bailiff. Accordingly, in practice, such a situation arises when one public bailiff employed by the National Bureau of Enforcement has several thousand cases pending, and the public bailiff is deprived of the opportunity to request a reduction in the number of cases assigned to him/her.

Based on the abovementioned circumstances, to improve the enforcement system and refine the legislation, in 2013, the EU representative office implemented a project: DEEP-Development of Enforcement Legislation Project in Georgia. Experts invited by the European Union took part in the abovementioned project, with whose active involvement, recommendations were developed and several measures were taken to reflect the abovementioned recommendations in legislative acts and put them into practice. The main essence and purpose of the abovementioned recommendations was the maximal equalization of private and public bailiff institutions at the legislative level.

As already mentioned, the institution of the private bailiff was introduced to take into account the best practices of European countries, and the final goal was to completely reorganize the existing system in the country on the activities of private bailiffs. The overall, the existence of the abovementioned institution is primarily beneficial for the state: a stable and healthy business environment is created, competition is stimulated as much as possible, service quality increases and prices decrease. All this ultimately creates such a situation, that the state is significantly exempted from expenses and all favourable conditions for economic growth are present. All this is based on the basic principle that the state should not provide the services that the private sector can provide.

5. The Institute of the Register of Debtors as an Innovation in Georgian Enforcement Legislation

Another important and the most recent institution provided by the Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings” is the Register of Debtors. The aforementioned institution “On Enforcement Proceedings” was reflected in the Law of Georgia on July 15, 2008 and began to operate in 2010. One of the reasons for the introduction of this institution was to bring the enforcement system in the country even closer to international standards. From that period to the present day, the institute has undergone numerous changes, the procedure for its production is approved by the Minister of Justice, and the register of debtors is maintained by the National Liaison Enforcement Bureau.[18]

The main essence and purpose of the production of the register of debtors by the National Bureau of Enforcement is to increase the efficiency of enforcement and to avoid the risks that accompany the aforementioned relations. In particular, this institution creates additional guarantees for the creditor that the debtor cannot avoid the obligations imposed on him/her during the compulsory enforcement proceedings.[19]

It is important that the data of the register of debtors is public, i.e. any person has the opportunity to receive information about the entities registered in the register. Unlike, for example, the German enforcement system, which does not make public the data of the register of debtors, but only provides information if the interested person indicates the purpose of receiving the information with appropriate justification, there is no such thing in the Georgian enforcement system. Absolutely any person can identify the persons registered in the Register of Debtors without limitation and determine by whom the registration of a person was carried out in the unified database of the Register of Debtors. It should be noted that the publicity of the register is also one of the drawbacks and this issue should be regulated differently by the legislation.

A person registered in the register of debtors is limited to one of the basic rights provided by the constitution: the property right. The restriction of the abovementioned right is provided for in the Constitution of Georgia only in the presence of the following conditions:[20]

Restrictions are allowed for essential public needs and “Common Welfare”;

The restriction shall be implemented based on the law and in the manner determined by the same law.

It is necessary to observe the principle of proportionality, and this principle includes the following:

Legitimacy of the legislator's goal; Effectiveness of the means to achieve the goal. If there is a less painful way to achieve the goal, then there is no need to restrict ownership.[21]

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it can be safely said that the institution of the Register of Debtors is a step forward for the Georgian enforcement system.

6. Basic Principles of Enforcement Proceedings

6.1. Protection of Legality, Transparency and Proportionality during the Enforcement Proceedings

It should be noted that the Georgian enforcement legislation does not pay much attention to the principles that should be drawn as a red line in the course of enforcement proceedings - from the moment of the start of enforcement. However, the legislator indicates, for example, the need to protect the general principles and norms of morality in the case that, enforcement actions are initiated against the debtor, However, due to special circumstances on the site (e.g. illness, death of a debtor’s family member, or other emergency), the National Enforcement Bureau can postpone the enforcement measure for no more than 6 months. In addition, although the law does not provide a direct reference to the abovementioned, the principle of proportionality between the parties must be respected during the enforcement proceedings.

Equal protection of the interests of the parties to enforcement proceedings is superficially discussed in the law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The Supreme Court of Georgia indicates in one of its decisions that: “The legislator granted the third party the right to demand compensation from the debtor, due to whose obligation his/her property was alienated”. It should be noted that the legislator did not associate the alienation of the third party’s property with the annulment of the results of the enforcement proceedings, even though it is clear that the interests of the third party were harmed by such an action. The city court explained that through such a record of the law, the legislator took into account the interests of the person who won the auction as a conscientious buyer and the creditor as a person interested in the compulsory enforcement of the claim existing in his/her favour and considered that their interests should be given priority over the interests of the third party, whose right to the realized property was established only after the realization of the property. Besides, the city court explained that „such an interpretation of the norm did not mean that the interests of third parties were not protected in such a case, although the Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings” defined a specific way for the third party to protect his/her interests, such as a demand for damages from the debtor, which, in turn, precluded the protection of his/her interests by invalidating the already held auction and returning the alienated property to a third party.[22] On the other hand, the importance of the principle of proportionality and the need to take it into account at any stage of the enforcement proceedings are emphasized in the European Convention on Human Rights.

There are different approaches regarding proportionality as a guiding principle and its importance in enforcement proceedings, the fact remains, however, that the observance of the abovementioned principle has an essential influence on the proper functioning of the enforcement system. Enforcement proceedings are organized differently in all countries, which is determined by the different legal traditions and systems of each country.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)- Having determined the enforcement of court decisions as one of its priorities, published guidelines for a better implementation of the recommendations of the European Council related to enforcement. On December 17, 2009, CEPEJ developed certain directives to effectively implement the recommendations of the European Council in the field of enforcement.[23]

The enforcement system cannot be perfect, there are always drawbacks in some aspects. However, the abovementioned recommendations are based on such basic principles in enforcement proceedings as transparency, efficiency and perceptibility.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice determined the basic principles that shall be followed for a flexible and transparent enforcement system.  

The guiding principles defined by the CEPEJ 2009 Guidelines are as follows: fairness and transparency of the enforcement process; Determining the capabilities of the debtor - to perform the court decision; maximum efficiency of the enforcement process; flexibility of enforcement process; The role and involvement of the bailiff in the process of enforcement proceedings; high degree of bailiff autonomy; clearly defining the competence of the bailiff by national legislation; Protection of the balance between the creditor and debtor parties during the enforcement proceedings and others.

6.2. The Scope of the Bailiff’s Authority and Interference in Communication between the Parties during the Implementation of Compulsory Enforcement Actions.

In enforcement proceedings, the bailiff is the central figure, since the legislator assigns to him/her the right and duty to execute the acts issued by the court and other bodies.

There are different approaches to the status of the bailiff in different countries. For example, in several countries (Germany, Sweden, Denmark), bailiffs act as civil servants and their authorities are quite narrow, the organizational structure in this case is quite hierarchical and bureaucratic.

In Georgia, the rights and duties of the bailiff are precisely defined by the Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings”, although in some cases he/she still has some discretion when making decisions. Therefore, when carrying out any action, the bailiff is obliged to maintain impartiality as much as possible and equally protect the interests of both the debtor and the creditor party and third parties participating in the proceedings.

7.Parties in Enforcement Proceedings

7.1. Creditor and Debtor as the Main Entities Participating in Enforcement Proceedings

The relations between the parties to the proceedings: the creditor and the debtor are mainly regulated by the Georgian Enforcement legislation.[24] It is important to highlight the fact, that the interests of any party shall not be harmed excessively, i.e. the principle of proportionality between the parties shall be protected as much as possible, especially in the conditions when a number of rights of the debtor are limited by the implementation of compulsory enforcement actions, including the main one: the property right. From the moment of the initiation of enforcement proceedings, the immovable and movable property registered in the name of the debtor is searched, the said property is seized, and in case of non-fulfilment of the obligation by the debtor, any property registered in his/her name is sold by auction. Under these conditions, interference with the debtor’s property right and its restriction shall be proportional and proportionate to the creditor’s request. In addition, there is a special burden on the limited use of personal data in the course of compulsory enforcement proceedings. Since, as we all know, the personal information and data of the parties are actively being processed during the proceedings, therefore, the personal data of the parties shall only be obtained and processed if there is a clear official need.[25]

7.2. Third parties and the scope of their involvement in enforcement proceedings

In addition to the creditor and debtor parties, third parties also participate in the enforcement proceedings. The right of the bailiff to seize any movable property that turns out to be at the debtor’s address specified in the enforcement sheet during the visit is provided for in the Georgian enforcement legislation. However, it is possible that the said property does not necessarily belong to the debtor and represents the property of a completely foreign, third party. In the performance of official duty, the bailiff does not have the obligation to establish the fact of belonging to the person of the thing, on the contrary, the burden of proof is transferred to the owner of the thing. The abovementioned provision of the law derives from the first part of Article 158 of the Civil Code of Georgia, which explains that: “The possessor of a thing shall be presumed to be its owner.”

In order not to harm the rights and legal interests of third parties, the legislator reserves to them the right to file a suit in court for the release of property from seizure.[26]

7.3. State and administrative bodies as debtors - features of enforcement

The state participates in legal relations as well as any other person. Concerning the issue of state participation in enforcement proceedings: Enforcement proceedings can usually be directed against the state as well, although there are certain limitations in this case. The imposition of the abovementioned restrictions is due to the motive of not harming the interests of society and statehood, for example, not alienating such property that belongs to the category of common public property and/or has any cultural significance for the country.

As for the enforcement proceedings against the state related to the payment of money, unlike other subjects, the legislator defines a different term for the voluntary execution of the decision (If the debtor party is represented by a legal entity under public law, a one-month deadline is established for the voluntary execution of the decision),[27] The abovementioned term applies also in the case when the debtor is a budgetary organization.[28]

Conclusion

In conclusion, Georgian enforcement law, compared to other branches of law, is still a new and developing area of law: In Georgia, as well as in any other democratic legal state, where it is important to ensure a high level of public confidence in the court, enforcement is a fundamental element of the rule of law. As stated in the document, every country has a different enforcement system. The procedures of Enforcement proceedings are organized differently everywhere, determined by the national legislation and different legal traditions of each country. However, some important principles are common everywhere, which should be drawn as a red line throughout the entire process of enforcement proceedings, such as the principle of protection of balance and proportionality between the parties participating in the proceedings, the need to protect personal data during enforcement proceedings and others.

As a result of the analysis of the existing enforcement system and legislation in Georgia, given in this article, it is clear that the Georgian system is of a mixed nature, which implies the functioning of both public and private enforcement institutions, which is implemented more or less successfully in the country and contributes to the stimulation of a healthy, competitive environment.

As noted in the document, the introduction of the institution of the private bailiff in the Georgian enforcement legislation was indeed an innovation and another big step forward. The goal of the abovementioned innovation, just like in foreign countries, was to establish an effective system of enforcement in Georgia and most importantly: promote healthy competition between private and public sectors. All this, in turn, was the basis for the economic growth of the state and the establishment of a healthy business environment.

Since the country’s aspiration for the maximum transparency and efficiency of the legal (including enforcement) system is clear, the necessity of reforming the enforcement legislation is also evident. With this in mind, working on a new enforcement code began a few years ago in Georgia, which will fundamentally change the Georgian enforcement system. The draft of the abovementioned code includes many legislative changes and innovations, which ultimately serve to make the Georgian enforcement system and institutions more transparent and efficient, and the legislation as close as possible to the international standards in this field. After introducing the enforcement code, a completely new enforcement system, different from the existing one, will be introduced and the standards of this system will be modernized as much as possible.

            Bibliography

1. Sources in Georgian: Constitution of Georgia, Civil Code of Georgia, Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, Administrative Code of Georgia, Administrative Procedure Code of Georgia.


2. Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings”.


3. Law of Georgia “On Protection of Personal Data”.


4. Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


5. Order of the Minister of Justice of Georgia N234 “On the approval of the procedure for the production of the register of debtors”.


6. Order of the Minister of Justice of Georgia N24, “On approval of the regulation of the National Enforcement Bureau of the Legal Entity under Public Law operating under the governance of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia” May 6, 2014.


7. The Georgian enforcement system in the national and international context, Jos Uytdehaag 2013.


8. Subjects of enforcement proceedings, Tchkonia Z., Justice and Law N1 (32), Tbilisi 2012.


9. Enforcement Law, Winfried Suske, 2011.


10. Comment on the Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings, Sh. Kurdadze and others, Tbilisi, 2018.


11. Handbook for enforcement law trainers, I. Uitdehaag and others, Tbilisi 2020.

12. Buadze K., 2011 Register of debtors in Georgian and German law (comparative legal analysis); Master thesis.


13. Papuashvili S., 2009, Legal Basis of Limiting Property Rights.


14. A collection of articles “Modern Challenges of Human Rights Protection” according to according to the European Convention on Human Rights and Georgian legislation.

1. “Overview of Georgia’s Enforcement System (Georgian Enforcement System in National and International Context)” by Jos Uytdehaag and others.


2. “IZA” LTD and Makrakhidze v. Georgia.


3. Apostol v. Georgia.

Sources in English :

1. Brown j., 2009. Judgment Enforcement James. Law and Business, Aspen Purblishers Walters Kluwer, third edition, preface Walters Kluwer, third edition, preface.

2.CEPEJ 2009 11 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing Council of Europe’s Recommendation on Enforcement, European Commission on the effi ciency of Justice (CEPEJ), CEPEJ 2009 11 REV

3.Uitdehaag A. Survey of enforcement in Europe, Tbilisi 2017

4.Hornsby v Greece (EGtHR March 19, 1997)

5.Case of Kyrtatos v.Greece

Footnotes

[1] “Executive Law” Winfried Suske.

[2] Hornsby v Greece (EGtHR March 19, 1997).

[3] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, November 4, 1950.

[4] “IZA” LTD and Makrakhidze v. Georgia.

[5] “Overview of Georgia’s Law Enforcement System (Georgian Law Enforcement System in National and International Context)”, Jos Uitdehaag et al.

[6] Apostol v. Georgia, 3 №40765/02, November 28, 2006.

[7] Brown J., 2009. Judgment Enforcement James. Law and Business, Aspen Publishers Walters Kluwer, third edition, preface.

[8] Metreveli V., History of Georgian Law.

[9] Todua, Sh., 2013, The need for enforcement law as an autonomous direction of national jurisprudence, Magazine “Justice”.

[10] Todua, Sh., 2013, The need for enforcement law as an autonomous direction of national jurisprudence, Magazine “Justice”.

[11] The Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings.

[12] Article 4^th of the Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings”

[13] Order of the Minister of Justice of Georgia N24, “On approval of the regulation of the National Enforcement Bureau of the Legal Entity under Public Law operating under the governance of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia” May 6, 2014.

[14] Manual of enforcement law trainers, I. Utdehaag and others, Tbilisi 2020.

[15] Comment on the Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings”; Kurdadze Sh. and others.

[16] Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings”, Article 14(7).

[17] Order of the Minister of Justice of Georgia N88 on determining the conditions and form of enforcement proceedings by a private bailiff.

[18] Order of the Minister of Justice of Georgia N234 “On the approval of the procedure for the production of the register of debtors”.

[19] Buadze K., 2011, Register of debtors in Georgian and German law (comparative legal analysis); Master thesis.

[20] Papuashvili S., 2009, Legal basis of restriction of property rights, according to the European Convention on Human Rights and Georgian legislation, collection of articles “Modern Challenges of Human Rights Protection”.

[21] Komakhidze, Ts., 2017, Legal basis for restriction of property rights according to the Constitution of Georgia and the practice of the Constitutional Court (Justice and Law #2(54)17.

[22] See Decision No. BS-10(K-20) of the Administrative Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia of July 9, 2020.

[23] CEPEJ (2009) 11 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing Council of Europe’s

Recommendation on Enforcement, European Commission on the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)

[24] Tchkonia, Z. 2012 “Entities of Enforcement proceedings”, “Justice and Law”, N:1 (32)12))

[25] Law of Georgia “On Protection of Personal Data”.

[26] Article 32^nd, The Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings”.  

[27] Article 90³_, Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings”.

[28] Article 90⁴_, Law of Georgia “On Enforcement Proceedings”.