×

Cookie Consent

This website uses cookies or similar technologies, to enhance your browsing experience and provide personalized recommendations. By continuing to use our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy

Digital Object Identifier
doi.org/10.36475/L.A.W.14
Abbreviated Title
L.A.W.
Issue
Online version
Print version

In This Article

    Abstract - Journal Law and World

    Volume 8, issue 4

    Typological characteristic of representation

    Authors: Irakli Leonidze1,

    Irakli Leonidze

    Master of Law, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University

    Email: irakli.leonidze@gmail.com


    Mariam Rubashvili2

    Mariam Rubashvili

    4nd Year Student of the Bachelor’s Program in Law at the Faculty of Law of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University

    Email: marirubashvili73@gmail.com



    Affiliation: Master of Law, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University1, 4nd Year Student of the Bachelor’s Program in Law at the Faculty of Law of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University2

    Abstract: One of the forms of realization of the principle of private autonomy in civil law is fiduciary relations. In general, in contemporary law, the institution of representation is the basic cornerstone upon which many legal relationships are built. The importance of the institution increases one or two times in private law, when a person or an organization that, due to the various reasons in legal relations, is unable to represent its interests, starts to act and conduct legal actions through a representative. There are many reasons, however, the legislative is one, about which there are still some question marks, how comprehensive the Georgian legislation provides for the institution of representation, and what is the basic legislative framework, can be used to distinguish between forms of representation. For the development of the doctrine of private law, it is of great importance to bring to the fore the relevance and importance of the institution of representation. And for this, it is appropriate to conduct a study of the theoretical issues of the institute - the way from its historical beginnings to modern times. The typological characterization of the issue allows identifying problems on such important issues as the function of representation, its essence, its specific features, and signs, and how harmoniously the Georgian legislative framework is compatible with the standards established at the international level. And for this, it is appropriate to conduct a study of the theoretical issues of the institute - the way from its historical beginnings to modern times. The typological characterization of the issue allows identifying problems on such important issues as the function of representation, its essence, its specific features, and signs, and how harmoniously the Georgian legislative framework is compatible with the standards established at the international level. And for this, it is appropriate to conduct a study of the theoretical issues of the institute - the way from its historical beginnings to modern times. The typological characterization of the issue allows identifying problems on such important issues as the function of representation, its essence, its specific features, and signs, and how harmoniously the Georgian legislative framework is compatible with the standards established at the international level.

    Keywords: Representation, Typology, Problem,


    Language: GE

    views: 10745
    Download
      There is no similar articles!




    Bibliography:

    Normative Materials:

    1. Civil Code of Georgia, 1997.
    2. Law of Georgia on Notaries, 2009.
    3. Minister of Justice of Georgia Order No71 “On Approval of Instructions for Notarial Act Performannce Procedure”, 2010.

    Scientific Literature:

    1. Amiranashvili, G. (2018). Compulsion to Form of Transaction as a Limitation of Freedom of Form. Tbilisi: “Meridiani”, p. 14. (In Georgian)
    2. Bichia, M. (2016). Legal Obligational Relations. Tbilisi: “Bona Causa”, p. 72. (In Georgian)
    3. Garishvili, M., Khoperia, M. (2010). Characteristics of Ancient Rome Law, Tbilisi, p. 215. (In Georgian)
    4. Erkvania, T., (2012). Protection of Third Persons’ Interests in Representation (According to the Civil Codes of Georgia and Germany). Justice and Law, №3 (34), pp. 38-39. (In Georgian)
    5. Zoidze, B. (2005). Reception of German Property Law in Georgia. Tbilisi: Training Center for Publishing, p. 184. (In Georgian)
    6. Zoidze, B., (2019). The Main Challenges of the Association on Agreement with the European Union for Georgian Private Law. Private Law Review, №2, pp. 12-13. (In Georgian)
    7. Tumanishvili, G. G. (2012). Introduction to Private Law of Georgia, Tbilisi: Ilia State University Press, p. 177. (In Georgian)
    8. Tumanishvili, G. G. (2012). Deals (Legal Nature and Normative Regulation), Tbilisi: Ilia State University Press, pp. 86, 90-91. (In Georgian)
    9. Kereselidze, D. (2009). General Concepts of Private Law. Tbilisi: Institute of European and Comparative Law Press, pp. 401-402. (In Georgian)
    10. Kropholler. I. (2014). The German Civil Code, Teaching Commentary, Chachanidze E., Darjania T., Totladze L. (eds.), 13rd ed., Tbilisi: GIZ, § 164, 1. (In Georgian)
    11. Maisuradze, D., Darjania, T., Papuashvili, Sh. (2017). Case Book Civil Code General Part. Tbilisi: GIZ, pp. 83-84, 89. (In Georgian)
    12. Metreveli, V. (2013). Roman Law (Fundamentals), Tbilisi, pp. 9-10, 50. (In Georgian)
    13. Oppermann, Th., Classen C. D., Nettesheim M., (2021). Europarecht Ein Studienbuch, Tbilisi: GIZ, pp. 712-713. (In Georgian)
    14. Papidze, Kh., (2021). Legal Fundamentals of the Representation. Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №7, pp. 16, 24-25. (In Georgian)
    15. Rusiashvili, G., (2021). Collusion and Abuse of Representative Authority. Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №6, pp. 1-2. (In Georgian)
    16. Surguladze, N. (2002) Corpus Iuris Civilis. Tbilisi, p. 193. (In Georgian)
    17. Teteloshvili, B., (2022). The Lifetime Annuity Contract - Its Basics of Origin and the Rights and Obligations of the Parties (The Attitude of the Civil Code of Georgia to the Modern Trends in its Regulation). Tbilisi: „Georgika“, pp. 210-211. (In Georgian)
    18. Kardava, E. (2019). Association Agreement - a Special International Agreement with Specific Characteristics in the Book: Jorbenadze, S. (ed.), Sergo Jorbenadze 90, Tbilisi: Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani University Press, p. 169. (In Georgian)
    19. Qiuzi, T., (2019). Importance of Comparative Law for Georgia. Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №2, pp. 2, 7. (In Georgian)
    20. Kandashvili, I. (2018). Judicial and Non-judicial Forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution on the Example of Mediation in Georgia. Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Press, p. 223. (In Georgian)
    21. Kandashvili, I. (2020). Mediation (Effective Alternative Dispute Resolution), Tbilisi, pp. 188- 189. (In Georgian)
    22. Zweigert, K., Kitz, H. (2001). An Introduction to Comparative Law in the Private Law. 1st ed., Tbilisi: “GCI”, pp. 10, 200. (In Georgian)
    23. Zweigert, K., Kitz, H. (2001). An Introduction to Comparative Law in the Private Law. 2rd ed., Tbilisi: “GCI”, pp. 8-9. (In Georgian)
    24. Tskhadadze, K., (2012). The Need for the Institution of Representation in Administrative Law. “Journal of Law”, №1, p. 294. (In Georgian)
    25. Tskhadadze, K., (2016). Institute of Representation in Administrative Law. Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Press, pp. 21-22. (In Georgian)
    26. Chanturia, L., (2011). General Part of Civil Law. Tbilisi: “Law”, pp. 421-422, 424-425. (In Georgian)
    27. Jorbenadze, S. (2017). Commentary on Article 103 in the Book: Chanturia, L. (ed.), Commentary on the Civil Code of Georgia, Book I, Tbilisi, pp. 590- 591. (In Georgian)
    28. Brown, H., (2007). Napoleon Bonaparte, Political Prodigy, Journal of History Compass. Blackwell Publishing House, №5/4, pp. 1387-1388.
    29. Charles Sumner Lobingier, (1918). Napoleon and His Code. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 32, №2, pp. 123-124.
    30. Fauvarque-Cosson, B., (2014). The French Contract Law Reform in a European Context. Elte Law Journal, №1, p. 67.
    31. Léon Julliot de La Morandière, (1948). The Reform of the French Civil Code. The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 97, №1, pp. 1-2.
    32. Markesinis, B. S., Unberath, H., Johnston, A. (2006). The German Law of Contract, A Comparative Treatise, 2nd ed., Oxford/Portland, Oregon, pp. 65, 412-413.
    33. MüKo/Schubert, BGB, 7. Aufl., 2015, § 164, Rn. 1 (in German).
    34. Pieck, M., (1996). A Study of the Significant Aspects of German Contract Law. Journal of Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp. 115-116.

    Court Decisions:

    1. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-124-116-2017, Dated 23 July 2020. (In Georgian)
    2. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-800-2020, Dated 12 November 2020. (In Georgian)
    3. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-1281-2018, Dated 27 March 2019. (In Georgian)
    4. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-1178-1098-2017, Dated 26 March 2019. (In Georgian)
    5. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-1555-2018, Dated 7 June 2019. (In Georgian)
    6. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-766-766-2018, Dated 10 June 2019. (In Georgian)
    7. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-917-909(k-16), Dated 19 July 2019. (In Georgian)
    8. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-847-847-2018, Dated 25 September 2018. (In Georgian)
    9. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-678-649-2016, Dated 16 December 2016. (In Georgian)
    10. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-235-222-2015, Dated 16 March 2015. (In Georgian)
    11. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-951-989-2011, Dated 10 November 2011. (In Georgian)
    12. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-836-1078-04, Dated 23 June 2005. (In Georgian)
    13. BGH 11.05.2011 - VIII ZR 289/09.
    14. BGH 19.12.2014 - V ZR 194/13.
    15. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Cramaso LLP (Appellant) v Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others (Respondents).
    16. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Lloyd (Respondent) v Google LLC (Appellant).

    Notes:

    1. Qiuzi, T., (2019). Importance of Comparative Law for Georgia. Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №2, p. 7. (In Georgian)
    2. Jorbenadze, S. (2017). Commentary on Article 103 in the Book: Chanturia, L. (ed.), Commentary on the Civil Code of Georgia, Book I, Tbilisi, p. 590. (In Georgian)
    3. Zweigert, K., Kitz, H. (2001). An Introduction to Comparative Law in the Private Law. 1st ed., Tbilisi: “GCI”, p. 10. (In Georgian)
    4. Aleksandre Kazbegi, “Khevisberi Gotcha”. (In Georgian)
    5. Vazha Pshavela, “Bakhtrioni”. (In Georgian)
    6. Kandashvili, I. (2018). Judicial and Non-judicial Forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution on the Example of Mediation in Georgia. Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Press, p. 223. (In Georgian)
    7. During the period of Guria's speeches in 1905, the Georgian intelligentsia stood as a representative and guarantor of the rebels in order to intercede with the Russian Empire in order to deport them or take other repressive measures. See Lortkifanidze, M., et al. (2012). History of Georgia in Four Volumes (Georgia in the 19th - 20th Centuries), Tbilisi: “Palitra L”, pp. 114-115. (In Georgian)
    8. Papidze, Kh., (2021). Legal Fundamentals of the Representation. Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №7, pp. 16. (In Georgian)
    9. Tskhadadze, K., (2012). The Need for the Institution of Representation in Administrative Law. “Journal of Law”, №1, p. 294. (In Georgian)
    10. Ibid.
    11. Jorbenadze, S. (2017). Commentary on Article 103 in the Book: Chanturia, L. (ed.), Commentary on the Civil Code of Georgia, Book I, Tbilisi, pp. 590-591. (In Georgian)
    12. Maisuradze, D., Darjania, T., Papuashvili, Sh. (2017). Case Book Civil Code General Part. Tbilisi: GIZ, pp. 83-84. (In Georgian)
    13. Ibid, p. 89.
    14. Kandashvili, I. (2020). Mediation (Effective Alternative Dispute Resolution), Tbilisi, pp. 188-189. (In Georgian)
    15. Oppermann, Th., Classen C. D., Nettesheim M., (2021). Europarecht Ein Studienbuch, Tbilisi: GIZ, pp. 712-713. (In Georgian)
    16. Zoidze, B., (2019). The Main Challenges of the Association on Agreement with the European Union for Georgian Private Law. Private Law Review, №2, p. 12. (In Georgian)
    17. Ibid, p. 13.
    18. Comp. Kereselidze, D. (2009). General Concepts of Private Law. Tbilisi: Institute of European and Comparative Law Press, pp. 401-402. (In Georgian)
    19. Rusiashvili, G., (2021). Collusion and Abuse of Representative Authority. Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №6, pp. 1-2. (In Georgian)
    20. Zoidze, B. (2005). Reception of German Property Law in Georgia. Tbilisi: Training Center for Publishing, p. 184. (In Georgian)
    21. Metreveli, V. (2013). Roman Law (Fundamentals), Tbilisi, pp. 9-10. (In Georgian)
    22. Qiuzi, T., (2019). Importance of Comparative Law for Georgia. Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №2, p. 2. (In Georgian)
    23. Metreveli, V. (2013). Roman Law (Fundamentals), Tbilisi, p. 50. (In Georgian)
    24. Amiranashvili, G. (2018). Compulsion to Form of Transaction as a Limitation of Freedom of Form. Tbilisi: “Meridiani”, p. 14. (In Georgian)
    25. Garishvili, M., Khoperia, M. (2010). Characteristics of Ancient Rome Law, Tbilisi, p. 215. (In Georgian) Also, Comp. Bichia, M. (2016). Legal Obligational Relations. Tbilisi: “Bona Causa”, p. 72. (In Georgian)
    26. Surguladze, N. (2002) Corpus Iuris Civilis. Tbilisi, p. 193. (In Georgian)
    27. See. Maisuradze, D., Sulkhanishvili, E., Vashakidze, G. (2018). EU Private Law - Decisions and Materials, Consumer Protection law, Labor Law, Corporate Law, Competition Law. Part One, Tbilisi: Society for International Cooperation of Germany, pp. 26-28.
    28. Tumanishvili, G. G. (2012). Introduction to Private Law of Georgia, Tbilisi: Ilia State University Press, p. 177. (In Georgian)
    29. Zweigert, K., Kitz, H. (2001). An Introduction to Comparative Law in the Private Law. 2rd ed., Tbilisi: “GCI”, pp. 8-9. (In Georgian)
    30. Tumanishvili, G. G. (2012). Deals (Legal Nature and Normative Regulation), Tbilisi: Ilia State University Press, pp. 86, 90-91. (In Georgian)
    31. Comp. Kereselidze, D. (2009). General Concepts of Private Law. Tbilisi: Institute of European and Comparative Law Press, pp. 401-402. (In Georgian)
    32. Chanturia, L., (2011). General Part of Civil Law. Tbilisi: “Law”, pp. 424-425. (In Georgian)
    33. Ibid.
    34. Papidze, Kh., (2021). Legal Fundamentals of the Representation. Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №7, pp. 24-25. (In Georgian)
    35. Comp. Teteloshvili, B., (2022). The Lifetime Annuity Contract - Its Basics of Origin and the Rights and Obligations of the Parties (The Attitude of the Civil Code of Georgia to the Modern Trends in its Regulation). Tbilisi: „Georgika“, pp. 210-211. (In Georgian)
    36. Civil Code of Georgia, 1997, Article 103. (In Georgian)
    37. Minister of Justice of Georgia Order №71 “On Approval of Instructions for Notarial Act Performannce Procedure”, 2010, Article 28, Part 2. (In Georgian)
    38. Ibid, Part 3. (In Georgian)
    39. See. Leonidze, I., (2021). Civil Liability of the Notary Mediator in Notarial Law (Legal Regulations and Institutional Challenges). Journal of Georgian National University SEU International Student Scientific Conference Papers: “Seu & Science”, pp. 279-283. (In Georgian)
    40. Law of Georgia on Notaries, 2009, Article 38, Part 1 “a”. (In Georgian)
    41. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-39-486-06, Dated 8 September 2006. (In Georgian)
    42. Ibid.
    43. See. Erkvania, T., (2012). Protection of Third Persons’ Interests in Representation (According to the Civil Codes of Georgia and Germany). “Justice and Law”, №3 (34), pp. 38-39. (In Georgian)
    44. Pieck, M., (1996). A Study of the Significant Aspects of German Contract Law. Journal of Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp. 115-116.
    45. Markesinis, B. S., Unberath, H., Johnston, A. (2006). The German Law of Contract, A Comparative Treatise, 2nd ed., Oxford/Portland, Oregon, pp. 65, 412-413.
    46. German Civil Code [BGB].
    47. Kropholler. I. (2014). The German Civil Code, Teaching Commentary, Chachanidze E., Darjania T., Totladze L. (eds.), 13rd ed., Tbilisi: GIZ, p. 90, § 164, 1. (In Georgian)
    48. Chanturia, L., (2011). General Part of Civil Law. Tbilisi: “Law”, pp. 421-422. (In Georgian)
    49. See: Papidze, Kh., (2021). Legal Fundamentals of the Representation. Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №7, p. 16 (in Georgian); Tskhadadze, K., (2016). Institute of Representation in Administrative Law. Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Press, pp. 21-22. (In Georgian)
    50. BGH 11.05.2011 - VIII ZR 289/09.
    51. BGH 19.12.2014 - V ZR 194/13.
    52. See. § 164.
    53. See. BGHZ 8, 132; 16, 263 and § 950 BGB.
    54. Except of § 854 II BGB.
    55. Brown, H., (2007). Napoleon Bonaparte, Political Prodigy, Journal of History Compass. Blackwell Publishing House, №5/4, pp. 1387-1388.
    56. Charles Sumner Lobingier, (1918). Napoleon and His Code. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 32, №2, pp. 123-124.
    57. Léon Julliot de La Morandière, (1948). The Reform of the French Civil Code. The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 97, №1, pp. 1-2.
    58. See: https://www.trans-lex.org/601101/_/french-civil-code-2016/ [Last Seen 25 September 2022]; Also, Code Napoleon of The French Civil Code, William Benning Law Bookseller, 1827.
    59. See. Fauvarque-Cosson, B., (2014). The French Contract Law Reform in a European Context. Elte Law Journal, №1, p. 67.
    60. Zoidze, B. (2018). The Impact of Basic Rights on Private Autonomy: Expansion or Limitation of Private Autonomy (Review of the Practice of the Constitutional Court of Georgia) in: Private Autonomy as a Fundamental Principle of Civil Law, Zarandia, T., Kurzynsky-Singer, E., Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Press, pp. 93-95.
    61. Zweigert, K., Kitz, H. (2001). An Introduction to Comparative Law in the Private Law. 1st ed., Tbilisi: “GCI”, p. 200. (In Georgian)
    62. Comp. MüKo/Schubert, BGB, 7. Aufl., 2015, § 164, Rn. 1.
    63. Comp. Kropholler. I. (2014). The German Civil Code, Teaching Commentary, Chachanidze E., Darjania T., Totladze L. (eds.), 13rd ed., Tbilisi: GIZ, § 164, 1. (In Georgian)
    64. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-1281-2018, Dated 27 March 2019. (In Georgian)
    65. Comp. Dzlierishvili, Z., Tsertsvadze, G., Robakidze, I., Svanadze, G., Tsertsvadze, L., Janashia, L., (2014). Contract Law. Tbilisi: “Meridiani”, p. 35. (In Georgian)
    66. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-1178-1098-2017, Dated 26 March 2019. (In Georgian)
    67. Tumanishvili, G. G. (2012). Deals (Legal Nature and Normative Regulation), Tbilisi: Ilia State University Press, pp. 90-91. (In Georgian)
    68. See: Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-678-649-2016, Dated 16 December 2016 (in Georgian); Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as847-847-2018, Dated 25 September 2018 (in Georgian); Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-1555-2018, Dated 7 June 2019. (In Georgian)
    69. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-800-2020, Dated 12 November 2020. (In Georgian)
    70. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-235-222-2015, Dated 16 March 2015. (In Georgian)
    71. See. Chanturia, L., Civil Law. General Part in the Collection: Zarandia, T. (ed.), Fundamentals of Georgian Civil Law in Georgian Judicial Practice. Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Faculty of Law, pp. 6-7.
    72. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-836-1078-04, Dated 23 June 2005. (In Georgian)
    73. Comp. Okreshidze, G., (2020). Sub-representation (Judicial Practice). Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №10, p. 64.
    74. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-951-989-2011, Dated 10 November 2011. (In Georgian)
    75. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-917-909(k-16), Dated 19 July 2019. (In Georgian)
    76. Comp. Okreshidze, G., (2020). Direct Representation in the Transaction (Judicial Practice). Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №10, p. 63.
    77. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-766-766-2018, Dated 10 June 2019. (In Georgian)
    78. Comp. Ahlgren, C., (2021). Access to Publicly Funded Legal Aid in England & Wales and Sweden – a Comparative Study. Örebro: Örebro Universitet, p. 26.
    79. See. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-191-2021, Dated 29 April 2022. (In Georgian)
    80. See. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-124-116-2017, Dated 23 July 2020 (in Georgian) in Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-127-124- 2011, Dated 5 September 2012. (In Georgian)
    81. See. Kavshbaia, N., (2020). Invalidity of the Transfer of Ownership of an Item on Behalf of a Self-guaranteed Heir (Judicial Practice). Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law, №7, p. 71. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Case №as-543-516-2013, Dated 8 July 2013. (In Georgian)
    82. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Lloyd (Respondent) v Google LLC (Appellant), p. 13.
    83. Comp. Kardava, E. (2019). Association Agreement - a Special International Agreement with Specific Characteristics in the Book: Jorbenadze, S. (ed.), Sergo Jorbenadze 90, Tbilisi: Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani University Press, p. 169. (In Georgian)
    Publication Fee
    Free-of-charge
    Editor in Chief
    Ioseb Kelenjeridze
    Publishing Language
    English
    Georgian

    dealSeal

    Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved