Limitation of Freedom of Will in the Household – The Problem of Private Property of Georgian Citizens

Abstract

Nowadays, the limitation of the freedom of will when obtaining ownership rights to household property has acquired tremendous legal importance because the registration of household property is manifested in frequent inheritance disputes, and citizens have been deprived of the opportunity to make a will for years. Consequently, the rule of legal inheritance remained the only means of obtaining ownership of the household property. Increased rates of estate disputes caused by many reasons are more problematic. Some citizens can still not register their property, and these plots are subject to dispute. It is worth noting how the freedom of will was limited in the household and how quickly agricultural plots turned into inheritance disputes. Restricting the freedom of will and other restrictions creates an irreversible situation of unequal distribution of land among citizens, and years later, we will face the reality when the right to own land will lose its self-generating function. The research is directed to evaluating the problem caused by the limitation of the freedom of will when obtaining the ownership right to the household’s property.  Also, the research discusses the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania regarding land ownership.

Keywords: Freedom of will, Household, heir, Household member and non-member heirs, Estate, actual possession, Litigation, Notary

Introduction

Many features distinguish the property of the household. In practice, there are cases when citizens’ demands for household property are based on exclusive interests. Therefore, obtaining the right to own it is problematic because the property relationship between the household and citizens with the right has lost the function of transfer of rights and duties through self-regulation. The response to the problem cannot be carried out if it does not have social compatibility with the circumstances because the change in family ties of citizens in relation to the household is accompanied by a dispute between the heirs, which implies the disruption of the family system by presenting individual interests. Analyzing the decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia to study the issue of obtaining the right of ownership to the property of a household is an opportunity to form important conclusions. The main task of the research is to highlight the problem of limiting the freedom of will in the household.

1. The Testator and the Heir in the Household

Despite the legal regulation of the status of legal and testamentary heirs in modern private law, it is still problematic to take into account the number of rows of heirs, the distribution of inheritance property, and the interests of the heir and the heirs.[1] If we rely on the mentioned position, it will be reasonable to discuss the status of the heir of the family, which is not perfectly regulated and creates difficulty with the main record of the heir, which is because it is not possible to establish any priority between the claims of the heirs on the property of the family, which will be derived from the law and justified.[2] “Soviet law was familiar with the registration of rights to real estate”. According to the Soviet Civil Code, the acquisition of ownership of a residential house was connected with registration”.[3] Old real estate registrations are of evidentiary value. However, there is a risk that the document’s content may contain conflicting information.

The types of household heirs are not defined by the legislation, which creates a problem in determining the status of the household heir. According to the Civil Code, in the case of inheritance by will, the heirs can be persons who were alive at the moment of the death of the decedent, as well as those who entered into his life and were born after his death, regardless of whether they are his children or not, as well as legal entities. The position is shared that it is not appropriate to separate the heir of the household in the concept of heir, although the distinction may be relevant for registration purposes. In general, “the one to whom the property rights and obligations of the heir are transferred through succession is considered an heir”.[4] To overcome the problem related to the form and content of the household, it is important to develop legal regulations so that citizens have a prior idea of their hereditary status and interest in the household, on which to base their demands, which may be diverse depending on what the heir wants and what his relationship with the household is.[5]

Inheritance rights allow the heir to benefit from the wealth of the estate and exercise the right to receive the inheritance. Therefore, the heir’s will should not be excluded when determining the means of transferring the property legally and in the form of a will. The inclusion of a member in the family by the heir is already a basis for the heir, although the cancellation of this possibility is a subject of dispute. Further, the freedom of will is limited between the order of the members of the family and the will of the last member. If there are questions regarding the status of the family’s heirs for the possession, use and disposal of the estate, this issue should be assessed within the scope of the heir’s true, legal and fair claim and not with the multitude of unreasonable claims.[6]

It is possible to establish the regulations for the heir of the family:

1. The last member of the household - the heir of the last surviving member mentioned in the household record;


2. Family member legal heir - family members may be mutual heirs and their status is determined by following the order of legal inheritance, however, with legal equality due to family membership;


3. A member of a household, a testamentary heir, who was named as an heir by the will and, if such an opportunity exists, was recorded as a member of the household;


4. Legal heir who is not a member of the household - the status of the heir is determined by observing the order of mutual inheritance and legal inheritance;


5. A testamentary heir who is not a member of the household, to whom the property of the household or its part was given by the last or other member of the household in the early years;


6. A family member or non-member, a person without hereditary status, who makes a claim or restricts the claim of other persons to this property.

The issues are complex to separate from each other and intersect, which is why it is possible that the boundary between one or two concepts may not be protected. The law does not have a locking mechanism that would give a status to a person in contact with a household and would not define the grounds for presenting a request during the registration of the right. The request is directed to the household’s property and obtaining the right of ownership through inheritance or recognition as the owner. In the main case, the rule of legal inheritance was established as an inviolable possibility of obtaining ownership of the family’s property, and the freedom of will in the family was limited.[7]

2. Household Estate

Household property is private property, the possession, use and disposal of which cannot be properly ensured by the citizen in the part of the right registration.[8] The word "household" confuses. Therefore, a household should be interpreted as a family, which, according to the household record, is credited with property, to which various circumstances prove the citizen's ownership connection. However, the multitude of persons with the right to claim and the competition of interests make registering a specific person as the owner impossible.

Other ways of defining a household connect the content of the concept to the idea of state property, where the citizen’s right to private property is defined differently. Regardless of the household’s load, it is important to determine the main composition: agricultural land plots, buildings on it, agricultural beds, and other types of property goods that are included in the name of the household. According to Article 1513 of the Civil Code of Georgia, the plots of land for legal use of natural persons, on which individual houses are located, are considered the property of these persons after the implementation of the Civil Code, and the rules provided for immovable property in the Civil Code apply to them. Ownership of homestead plots can be equated with ownership of household property. In general, the integrity of the household property depends on the location, which leads to the special interest of citizens when the increase in the value of land in a specific area reaches a large scale, and citizens try to destroy the integrity of the household property, divide and alienate plots.

According to Article 147 of the Civil Code, property is all things and intangible assets that can be owned, used and disposed of by natural and legal persons and acquired without restriction if prohibited by law or does not contradict moral norms. Household property consists of immovable and movable property. In different municipalities of Georgia, the property of a household is different, taking into account the land fund, the ratio established before and after the period of independence.[9] There is no model to help courts classify complex cases.[10] It is a fact that the value of residential land is increasing, it is a valuable asset.[11] The disorganization of the household’s property creates a problem for the heir to bequeath the property to another person and for the heir to inherit the household’s estate by will. The vulnerability of the heir with a will is because, regardless of the will, the separation of the property from the total mass is connected with disputes with other household members and disruption of the integrity of the household.

3. Restriction of Freedom of Will (Comparative Analysis of Judicial Practice of Georgia and Lithuania)

Regarding the restriction of the freedom of will in the family, the court determines the status of the person and the connection with the family’s estate. From the factual circumstances of one of the cases of the Supreme Court of Georgia, it is established that the citizens were in a registered marriage and did not have a child while living together. One of the spouses bequeathed all his property to his grandson from his first marriage. After his death, half of the disputed house was registered in the grandson’s name, which became known to the surviving wife. She filed a lawsuit to declare the will invalid because her family belonged to the household, and the estate could only be opened after the death of the last household member. Decisions made in the case were often cancelled by courts of different instances. According to the explanation of the court, only the homestead plot was owned by the spouses, and the spouses do not own the plot of land, the existence of which is necessary for homestead farming.[12] According to Article 1323, which has already been abolished today, the inheritance will be opened on the common property of the household from the day of the death of the last member of the household. This principle has been changed, and the death of the last family member is not necessary to open the family estate. Regarding the status of land, the Constitutional Court of Lithuania explains that the property which was illegally confiscated from citizens by the Soviet authorities or was transferred with the right to use it immediately after the independence of Lithuania was considered the property of the state until the right of the private owner on this property was restored, based on the presentation of the appropriate request, due to which the land The status was not divided based on the request of natural persons.[13]

In another case, the court shared the cassator’s opinion that in the legal assessment of the factual circumstances established by the previous instance, the appellate court incorrectly applied Article 1356 of the Civil Code, according to which, if the entire estate was distributed among the heirs by will, but one of the heirs was alive at the time of the opening of the estate It was no longer, inheritance does not arise by law, and other heirs will receive his share of the property in a will. The norm indicated by the court’s reasoning refers to a situation where the entire estate was distributed to the heirs by will, and one of the heirs died before the estate was opened. The court considers that the dispute between the parties should be settled based on Articles 1307 and 1371 of the Civil Code.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals when “the Appeals Chamber pointed out that since the communal household has been abolished since 1993, the determinant for obtaining ownership rights to the household’s property is the registration in the household by 1993“. From this period, as mentioned, the property is transformed into the joint property of the family members. Subsequently, the persons registered in the household can no longer claim the household’s property“. It should be noted that the year 1993 cannot be decisive because after the transformation of the property into co-ownership of the members of the household, the means of obtaining the ownership right is the indication of the co-owners in the household record, and after 1993, it was still possible to fill the household and change the property listed on it.[14] The Constitutional Court of Lithuania notes in one of its decisions that land reform and the concept of property restoration were implemented with varying frequency in the country’s municipalities, although the strategy was common across the country.[15]

The court pointed out that, taking into account the fact that the fact of the plaintiff’s inheritance of the disputed plot of land, or the acquisition of ownership rights to the disputed real estate during the land reform period, could not be established, the claim of the plaintiff was considered unsubstantiated and groundless - to recognize him as the owner of the disputed property, on the basis that The disputed real estate was an object included in the estate of the plaintiff’s heir. This means that a person’s contact with the household’s property must be substantiated by inheritance or the fact of acquiring property during the land reform period, if the person does not have these grounds, he cannot satisfy the request for property outside the household only by indicating that this property was part of the household.[16]

The Court noted that by dividing the household, the plaintiffs lost the ownership right to the common property of the household. Thus, they were entitled to a 1/2 share of the disputed property. Divining the household was connected with the equal distribution of the share in the legal burden. Even though the claimants claimed the property in dispute entirely and independently.[17]

The Court explains that “due to the absolute nature of ownership, the owner’s right to request an injunction cannot be statute-barred. Both acquisition and loss of ownership rights to immovable objects are related to registration in the public register. Because of the above, the basis for considering the owner’s status as violated must be a public registry entry; another person must be registered as the owner. Otherwise, the property right will not be considered violated, and the statute of limitations will not be allowed for the property as an absolute right”.[18] In the case of household property, the registration of a person as the owner was not done for years, which is why the actual ownership is one of the important elements for establishing a claim. However, the household record changes the reality, where different persons are registered jointly, or the record is substantially flawed. In one of the cases of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania, it is noted that together with the concept of property restoration, a management strategy was developed for the plots of land of agro-cultural importance to preserve both the registration and agricultural purpose.[19]

In another case, "the Court explains that the evidence in the case undoubtedly established that after the death of the head of the household and his wife, the household that owned the disputed property was represented/led by the defendant (mother), and her children (co-defendants) were enrolled in the same household, respectively, In the context of land reform, the defendants’ acquisition of title to the disputed property (taking into account the basis for obtaining such a right), constitutes the acquisition of a real right to the disputed property, which, in turn, gives the owner the right to freely own, enjoy and dispose of the property in his possession”.[20] Actual possession in the absence of registration is of particular importance. Actual possession must be proved by appropriate evidence.

“The legal interest of the plaintiffs was to obtain the right of ownership of the property, which went out of the domain of their heir’s disposal against the law, more precisely, based on a false entry in the land register, and first, it ended up in the domain of the first defendant’s disposal, based on the gift agreement of the father of the heir and later, based on the gift agreement. The defendants objected to the lawsuit by focusing on the incorrect determination of the inheritance mass of the plaintiffs’ heirs and the scope of the circle of heirs.[21] Such cases are illegal in the origin of ownership rights to the household; however, until this is established, the property can be alienated to third parties. The problem is that when the heir of the household loses the right to the property or thinks that he has lost the right to the property, the risk of the property being found in the possession of a third party increases, the heir has a prior expectation, and after the death of the heir, the heirs start a dispute.

The Court noted that “it is true that the claim does not contain a direct reference to the legal interest; however, taking into account the factual circumstances of the dispute, it is indisputable that the claimant wants to obtain (restore) the ownership right to the property, which he no longer has based on the disputed transactions”. Achieving this goal is impossible only in the conditions of a confessional lawsuit; the means of realization of this demand is the claim of appropriation, and the Court, based on the imperative limitation of Article 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot go beyond the claim and attribute to the party what it did not ask for, or more than he demanded. Thus, the Chamber concludes that the recognition claim is inadmissible in the case under consideration”.[22] The court, within its jurisdiction, distinguished between admissible and non-adjudicable issues.

“The Court shares the legal reasoning of the appealed decision and considers that taking into account the time of origin of the legal relationship, the lower Court correctly interpreted Articles 539, 544, 556, 540, 541 and 556 of the Code of Civil Law (1964 edition) Articles. The Court additionally noted the following: the legal interest of the claimant’s claim is the acquisition of ownership rights to the heir’s property, which the party associates with the fact that he took possession of the property after the heir’s death. The defendant, who is the registered owner of the property, disagrees with this fact (his deceased father obtained the inheritance by notarial procedure). In such a situation, in accordance with Article 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is obliged to indicate such circumstances and submit evidence, the analysis of which will confirm the fact of possessing the property”.[23] Property registration and actual possession conflict with each other; at this time, the Court focuses mainly on the presentation of evidence and reference to the relevant circumstances.

For the issue of establishing the norms necessary for establishing the right, the Chamber referred to Articles 92, 93, 103 of the Civil Code of Georgia (1964 edition) and explained that in the 1960s, the disputed plot of land was only the property of the state, which excluded the appellant the rights of the ancestor as the owner of the land plot. Pursuant to Article 1513 of the current Civil Code, the Chamber explained that the enacted law considered as the property of individuals only those plots that they had in legal use and on which individual houses owned by individuals were directly located. The purpose of this norm was to ensure the property of individuals both on the building and on the land, of which the individual house was an essential component. According to this article, for a person to be recognized as the owner of a plot of land, it is necessary for him to be the owner of an individual house and to have allocated a plot of land based on the relevant act. According to the plaintiff, after the 1960s, his family no longer owns the disputed plot of land. The transfer of ownership of a plot of land occupied in this manner was regulated by the law of Georgia “On recognition of ownership rights to land plots in the possession (use) of natural and private legal entities”, according to which one of the necessary conditions for obtaining ownership rights to a plot of land was ownership of a plot of land (legally or arbitrarily) through detention)”.[24]

The Chamber of Administrative Affairs states in one of the cases that “from the regulation of the Civil Law Code (the land was owned only by the state). According to the data of the land register, the possibility of obtaining ownership rights to a plot of land for personal use was initially taken into account by the land reform that began in January 1992 (“On the reform of agricultural land in the Republic of Georgia” according to paragraph 5 of Resolution No. 48 of 1992 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Georgia, Homestead, garden and country lands were transferred to the citizens of the Republic free of charge within the framework of the norms established by the law). The Court notes that in the process of land reform, the only basis for the issuance of the state act confirming the right to use land was the acceptance-handover act.[25]

In another case, the Court also points out that before the state independence of Georgia, the land was only the state’s property and was given to citizens only with the right to use it for life or temporarily. According to Article 13 of the Land Code, the land for use was provided by measurement.[26]

The Court clarifies that “flaws made during the execution of the deed of acceptance do not exclude its recognition as a document establishing the right”. “Acceptance-handover act is also considered to be drawn up according to the procedure established by the legislation of Georgia,[27] which does not correspond to the form approved by the Resolution No. 503 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Georgia dated June 28, 1993 “On the Regulation of the Registration of Documentation on Land Plots Transferred for the Use of Citizens of the Republic of Georgia”, but meets the requirements provided for in subsection “a” of this article. In accordance with these norms, it is clear that the deed of acceptance creates a reasonable expectation for its owner to register the right of ownership obtained by the deed of acceptance in the public register. The representative of the administrative body appearing at the session of the Court confirmed the validity of the document submitted by the plaintiff for registration and noted that at this stage, the failure to submit the appropriate document stipulated by the law was no longer an obstacle to obtaining the right of ownership of the immovable object requested for registration. Thus, the administrative body confirms the absence of the main factual basis for the decisions taken on refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s registration applications. The Court emphatically notes that the administrative body considered submitting an improper document confirming the right and the impossibility of confirming the corresponding right with other documents as the only obstacles to the real estate registration in the plaintiff’s interest. The materials of the case and the parties’ explanations, including the explanation given by the representative of the administrative body at the court session, proved that the specified circumstance was not an impeding factor for registration. Taking into account all of the above, the Court considers that in the conditions when the act of acceptance confirms the allocation of a plot of land to the heir of the claimant, also taking into account the fact that the existence of documentation reflecting the systematic registration related to the real estate in the public register is confirmed,[28] there is a fact of violation of the claimant’s right on the part of the administrative body - by unreasonably delaying the registration process for years and making wrong decisions, the claimant was not allowed to transform the right to the land plot transferred by the act of acceptance into ownership and to convert the real estate into civil circulation, which undermines the primary purpose of the public registry, which is to be The guarantor of the stability of civil turnover and public order“.[29]

By unreasonably delaying the registration process of residential land in the state and making wrong decisions,[30] the citizens of Georgia were not allowed to transform the right to the land plot transferred by the acceptance-handover act or another similar document into ownership and to turn real estate into civil circulation, which actions not only undermine the primary purpose of the public registry, to be The guarantor of the stability of civil turnover and public order but also represents a legal circumstance favouring inheritance disputes, further limiting the freedom of will in the household.[31] Consequently, the limitation of the freedom of will in the household turned into a problem of private property of Georgian citizens, which is more typical for legal heirs than for heirs by will.[32]

Conclusion

Problems that take decades to resolve cannot be fixed quickly. This is how the restriction of the freedom of will in the household appeared on the agenda when the difficulties faced by the members of the household regarding the will were highlighted. Wrong expectations should not be formed in relation to the property of the household, which concerns the registration of the right, documents and determination of the circle of owners. The importance of this study is shown in clarifying the problems of obtaining ownership of household property, where more attention should be paid to the heir in the household.

Bibliography

Normative Materials:

1. Civil Code of Georgia (1997).


2. Law of Georgia on Notaries (2009).

Scientific Literature:

3. Bichia, M. (2020). Legal Regime of Confidentiality Protection in the Mediation Process and Its Meaning. Land and World. 15/6 (in Georgian).


4. Chitoshvili, T. (2004). Household in Georgian Law. Tbilisi: “Meridian”. p. 11.


5. Chitoshvili, T. (2006). The Main Legal Aspects of the Origin of Ownership Rights to Real Estate. Tbilisi: Meridian. pp. 80-85.


6. Dixon (2003). The Reform of Property Law and the Land Registration Act 2002: a Risk Assessment. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. pp. 136-137.


7. Gershon, F., Ahihiko, N. (1999). The Benefits of Land Registration and Titling: Economic and Social Perspectives. Land Use Policy. Vol. 15/Issue 1. 40-41.


8. Lafachi, E. (2016). Impact of Registration of Intellectual Property Rights on Immovable Property on the Implementation and Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Tbilisi: TSU Publishing House. pp. 135-136 (in Georgian).


9. Leonidze, I., Chikviladze, G. (2022). The Importance of Eliminating the Legal Gap of Title to a Household and the Role of the Constitutional Court. Journal of Constitutional Law. 2, 95 (in Georgian).


10. Leonidze, I. (2022). The Importance of Mediation for Analyzing Civil Procedural Peculiarities of Fact-Finding of Inheritance Acceptance and Place of Estate Opening, Alternative Dispute Resolution Yearbook 2021. Special Edition (in Georgian).


11. Shengelia, E., Leonidze, I. (2023). Estate Household vs. Family Household (Frustra Pugna). Besarion Zoidze 70. 370 (in Georgian).


12. Shengelia, R. (2022). The Necessity of Perfecting the Mechanism of Protection of the Interests of the Subjects of Inheritance Legal Relations. Life and Law. 1-2 (57-58), 95 (in Georgian).


13. Shengelia, R., Shengelia, E. (2019). Family and Inheritance Law. Tbilisi: “Meridiani”. p. 318 (in Georgian).


14. Shotadze, T. (2014). Property Law. Tbilisi: “Meridiani”. pp. 442-443 (in Georgian).


15. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2022). Study on Key Aspects of Land Registration and Cadastral Legislation. United Nations, 15.


16. Zoidze, B. (2023). Formalism in Georgian Law (Primarily the Constitutional Court Practice. Journal of Public Law. 1, 124 (in Georgian).


17. Zoidze, B. (2005). Reception of European Private Law in Georgia. Tbilisi: “Publishing Case Training Center”. p. 274 (in Georgian).


18. Zoidze, T. (2022). The Influence of the Presumption of Infallibility and Completeness of Public Registry Data on the Bona Fide Acquisition of Property. Private Law Review. 28 (in Georgian).

Decisions of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia:

19. Ruling of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-416-393-2014, 20/04/2015.


20. Ruling of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-1081-1001-2017, 25/12/


21. Ruling of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-949-885-2017, 23/02/2018.


22. Ruling of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-1070-1029-2016, 15/02/2019.


23. Ruling of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-276-2019, 17/05/2019.


24. Ruling of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-1439-2020, 22/04/2021.


25. Ruling of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-380-2021, 26/11/2021.


26. Ruling of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №bs-133(k-20), 9/12/2021.


27. Ruling of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-464-2022, 6/12/2022.


28. Ruling of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia in the Case №bs-595(2k-22), 20/02/2023.

Decisions Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania:

29. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Case 12/93, 27/05/1994. Ruling on the Restoration of Ownership Rights to Land.


30. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Case 11-1993/9-1994, 15/06/1994. Ruling on the Restoration of Citizens’ Ownership Rights to Residential Houses.


31. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Case 10/1994, 19/10/1994. Ruling on the Restoration of the Ownership Rights to Residential Houses.


32. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Case 20/94-21/94, 8/03/1995. Ruling on the Restoration of the Ownership Rights to Residential Houses.


33. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Case 2-A/2021, 28/09/2021. Ruling on the Legal Remedy for the Protection of the Pre-emption Right to Acquire Private Agricultural Land.

Footnotes

[1] Shengelia, R. (2022). The Necessity of Perfecting the Mechanism of Protection of the Interests of the Subjects of Inheritance Legal Relations. Life and Law. 1-2 (57-58). 95.  

[2]  Gershon, F., Ahihiko, N. (1999). The Benefits of Land Registration and Titling: Economic and Social Perspectives. Land Use Policy. Vol. 15/Issue 1. 40-41.

[3]  Zoidze, B. (2005). Reception of European Private Law in Georgia. Tbilisi: “Publishing Case Training Center”, p. 274. See. Leonidze, I. (2022). The Importance of Mediation for Analyzing Civil Procedural Peculiarities of Fact-Finding of Inheritance Acceptance and Place of Estate Opening. Alternative Dispute Resolution Yearbook 2021. Special Edition.

[4]  Shengelia, R., Shengelia, E. (2019). Family and Inheritance Law. Tbilisi: “Meridiani”. p. 318.  

[5]  Comp. Dixon M. (2003). The Reform of Property Law and the Land Registration Act 2002: a Risk Assessment. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. pp. 136-137. 

[6]  Zoidze, T. (2022). The Influence of the Presumption of Infallibility and Completeness of Public Registry Data on the Bona Fide Acquisition of Property. Private Law Review. 28.

[7]  United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2022). Study on Key Aspects of Land Registration and Cadastral Legislation. United Nations. p. 15.

[8]  Comp. Shotadze, T. (2014). Property Law. Tbilisi: “Meridiani”. pp. 442-443.

[9] Leonidze, I., Chikviladze, G. (2022). The Importance of Eliminating the Legal Gap of Title to a Household and the Role of the Constitutional Court. Journal of Constitutional Law. 2, 95.

[10] Lafachi, E. (2016). Impact of Registration of Intellectual Property Rights on Immovable Property on the Implementation and Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Tbilisi: TSU Publishing House. pp. 135-136.  

[11] Bichia, M. (2020). Legal Regime of Confidentiality Protection in the Mediation Process and Its Meaning. Land and World. 15/6.

[12]  Shengelia, E., Leonidze, I. (2023). Estate Household vs. Family Household (Frustra Pugna). Besarion Zoidze 70, 370.

[13]  Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. Case 12/93, 27/05/1994 Ruling on the Restoration of   Ownership Rights to Land.

[14]  Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-464-2022, 6/12/2022.

[15] Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. Case 11-1993/9-1994, 15/06/1994. Ruling on the Restoration of Citizens’ Ownership Rights to Residential Houses.

[16]  Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-380-2021, 26/11/2021.

[17]  Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-1439-2020, 22/04/2021.

[18]  Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-717-2019, 28/06/2019.

[19] Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Case 2-A/2021, 28/09/2021. Ruling on the Legal Remedy for the Protection of the Pre-emption Right to Acquire Private Agricultural Land.

[20] Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-276-2019, 17/05/2019.

[21] Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-1070-1029-2016, 15/02/2019.

[22] Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-949-885-2017, 23/02/2018.

[23] Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-1081-1001-2017, 25/12/2017.

[24] Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №as-416-393-2014, 20/04/2015.

[25] Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №bs-695(3k-21), 26/04/2023.

[26] Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №bs-595(2k-22), 20/02/2023. Comp. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Case 10/1994, 19/10/1994. Ruling on the Restoration of the Ownership Rights to Residential Houses.                                                               

[27] Law of Georgia “On the Improvement of Cadastral Data and the Procedure for Systematic and Sporadic Registration of Rights to Plots of Land within the Framework of the State Project”. (2016). 17.b.

[28]  The respondent administrative body confirms the existence of the “yellow zone” containing the registration numbers, geographical location, and situational and geodetic-topographical indicators necessary for determining the boundaries of the immovable property located in the specified territory and its surrounding territory.

[29] Ruling  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  in  the  Case №bs-133(k-20), 9/12/2021.

[30] Comp. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Case 20/94-21/94, 8/03/1995. Ruling on the Restoration of the Ownership Rights to Residential Houses.

[31] Zoidze, B. (2023). Formalism in Georgian Law (Primarily the Constitutional Court Practice. Journal of Public Law. 1, 124.

[32] See: Chitoshvili, T. (2004). Household in Georgian Law. Tbilisi: “Meridian”. p. 11; Chitoshvili, T. (2006). The Main Legal Aspects of the Origin of Ownership Rights to Real Estate. Tbilisi: Meridian. pp. 80-85.