Case Law
Available documents (8)
sorted by (Date of decision descending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Georgia / 27 March 2018 / Georgia, საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო (Supreme Court of Georgia) / A-5273-sh-140-2017 / LLC “I-A” v. LLC “V-A”
Country Georgia Court Georgia, საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო (Supreme Court of Georgia) Date 27 March 2018 Parties A-5273-sh-140-2017 Case number LLC “I-A” v. LLC “V-A” Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(2) | V | V(1) | V(2)(b) Source http://prg.supremecourt.ge (website of the Supreme Court of Georgia)
Languages Georgian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5629&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Georgia Court Georgia, საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო (Supreme Court of Georgia) Date 01 February 2017 Case number a-3151-sh-83-2016 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(a) Source http://prg.supremecourt.ge (website of the Supreme Court of Georgia)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4586&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Georgia Court Georgia, საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო (Supreme Court of Georgia) Date 26 August 2016 Parties LLC “G” v LLC “K-A” Case number A-887-sh-21-2016 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(2) | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) Source http://prg.supremecourt.ge (website of the Supreme Court of Georgia)
Languages Georgian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5630&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Georgia Court Georgia, საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო (Supreme Court of Georgia) Date 06 July 2012 Parties JSC “P” v. “L” LLC Case number a-492-sh-11-2012 Source http://prg.supremecourt.ge (website of the Supreme Court of Georgia)
Languages English Summary On 14 September 2011, the United Mediation Court of Riga rendered an arbitral award ordering “L” LLC (“L”) to pay certain amounts to JSC “P” (“P”). P sought recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in Georgia before the Supreme Court of Georgia. L challenged enforcement of the award on the grounds that it had not been informed of the arbitration proceedings and that the arbitral award went beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement. L also argued that a mortgage contract mentioned in the award was not related to the subject matter of the dispute and thus resulted in a breach of Articles 45(1)(a)(a.c.) (which is identical to Article V(1)(b) NYC) and 45(1)(a)(a.d.) (which is similar to Article V(1)(c) NYC) of the Arbitration Law of Georgia. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. With regard to the objection under Article 45(1)(a)(a.c.) of the Arbitration Law of Georgia, it stated that the case file and the award showed that L had been informed of the arbitral proceedings, that it had submitted its response in the proceedings, and that its directors had been duly served summons. As for the second ground under Article 45(1)(a)(a.d.) of the Arbitration Law, it held that the award did not concern the mortgage contract. In reaching this conclusion, it examined the dispositive part of the award, noting that it did not contain any rulings regarding the mortgage contract. The Supreme Court then, on its own motion, proceeded to consider whether the award was contrary to public policy under Article 45(1)(b)(b.b.) of the Arbitration Law (which is identical to Article V(2)(b) NYC). In examining whether the arbitral award contradicted the rules provided in Articles 276(2) and Article 301(11) of the Civil Code of Georgia (“the Civil Code”), it concluded that since the award did not uphold or relate to the sale of collateral in order to satisfy a claim and as L had not claimed that the recovered amount was insufficient to satisfy the claim, Articles 276(2) and 301(11) of the Civil Code were not applicable and the award was not contrary to public policy. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1364&opac_view=2 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Georgia Court Georgia, საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო (Supreme Court of Georgia) Date 15 May 2009 Parties “S.F.M.” LLC v. Batumi City Hall Case number a-471-sh-21-09 Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | V | II(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(2)(a) Source http://prg.supremecourt.ge (website of the Supreme Court of Georgia)
Languages English Summary “S.F.M.” LLC (“SFM”) entered into a sales contract with Batumi City Hall (“Batumi”). A dispute arose between the parties and SFM initiated arbitration proceedings before the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC), as provided for in the sales contract. On 24 May 2007, the ICAC rendered an award ordering Batumi to pay damages and costs to SFM. SFM applied to the Supreme Court of Georgia for recognition and enforcement of the award in Georgia, which Batumi challenged based on Article V(2)(a) NYC and the Private International Law of Georgia. It argued that the subject matter of the dispute was non-arbitrable under Georgian law, and, moreover, that it had not been served SFM’s statement of claim and had thus been unaware of SFM’s case against it. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. It found that it was not authorized to review the lawfulness and appropriateness of the reasoning behind foreign arbitral awards and was bound to enforce them as required under Article III NYC. The Supreme Court held that although recognition and enforcement could be refused pursuant to Article V(1)(b) NYC, in the present case Batumi had been notified of the initiation of the arbitration proceedings and SFM’s appointment of an arbitrator. It also noted that Batumi had been provided with SFM’s statement of claim and that, despite this, it had failed to appoint an arbitrator or submit a response in the proceedings. It thus ruled that Article V(1)(b) NYC was not applicable to the present case. The Supreme Court also rejected Batumi’s second argument that the subject matter of the dispute was non-arbitrable under Article V(2)(a) NYC and the Private International Law of Georgia. The Supreme Court, relying on Article II(1) NYC, held that the sales contract provided for arbitration under the ICAC, and as Batumi had failed to establish that the written arbitration agreement had been declared void or ineffective, as it would be required to do under Article V(1)(a), the Supreme Court could not refuse enforcement. It thus concluded that no grounds existed for refusing recognition and enforcement of the award, either under Article V NYC or the Private International Law of Georgia. It thus recognized the decision as final and enforceable in Georgia pursuant to Article III NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1362&opac_view=2 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Georgia Court Georgia, საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო (Supreme Court of Georgia) Date 16 September 2005 Parties Company “I” v. JSC “A” Case number a-1881-sh-57-05 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source http://prg.supremecourt.ge (website of the Supreme Court of Georgia)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4585&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Georgia Court Georgia, საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო (Supreme Court of Georgia) Date 02 April 2004 Parties Ltd. “R.L.” v. JSC “Z. Factory” Case number a-204-sh-43-03 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) Source http://prg.supremecourt.ge (website of the Supreme Court of Georgia)
Languages English Summary On 24 May 2002, Ltd. “R.L.” (“RL”) entered into a contract with JSC “Z. Factory” (“Factory”) for the delivery of silicon manganese. The contract was governed by English law and provided for the resolution of disputes by arbitration in London. A dispute arose and RL initiated arbitration in London, claiming non-performance of contractual obligations by Factory. On 25 April 2003, the arbitral tribunal issued an award in favor of RL, which it sought to have recognized and enforced in Georgia before the Supreme Court of Georgia. Factory opposed recognition and enforcement based on Articles V(1)(a) and (V)(1)(d) NYC. It argued that as per Georgian law, an enterprise in which the State had a controlling stake or a shareholding of more than 50 percent, required the approval of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia (“the Ministry) to enter into contracts which provided for arbitration. It stated that since the State owned a controlling stake in Factory, and Factory had not obtained approval of the Ministry to enter into the contract, the arbitration agreement was void under Georgian law as Factory was under an “incapacity” pursuant to Article V(1)(a) NYC. Factory also argued that the arbitral proceedings had not been conducted in accordance with the parties’ agreement, as the agreement called for a tribunal of three arbitrators, but in fact, the dispute had been decided by a sole arbitrator. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award, holding that it was not authorized to examine the legality of an award of a foreign arbitral tribunal, or the reasoning behind its decision, and that foreign arbitral awards were binding and enforceable in Georgia pursuant to Article III NYC. After listing the grounds for refusal of enforcement under Article V(1) NYC, the Supreme Court held that for an award to be refused enforcement under Article V(1)(a) NYC, a party had to demonstrate that the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which the parties had subjected it (in the present case, English law), concluding that Factory had failed to show that the arbitration agreement was invalid, or that Factory had lacked legal capacity to conclude the contract, under English law. The Supreme Court also held that the agreement was valid under Georgian law. With respect to the challenge under Article V(1)(d) NYC, the Supreme Court held that pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the arbitration proceedings were governed by the UK Arbitration Act 1996, which, under Article 17, allowed a party appointed arbitrator to become a sole arbitrator if the other party failed to appoint an arbitrator of its own. It observed that Factory, despite being asked to appoint an arbitrator, had failed to do so, and thus, the arbitrator appointed by RL had rendered an award as a sole arbitrator in accordance with the agreement of the parties and the law of seat. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1365&opac_view=2 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Georgia Court Georgia, საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო (Supreme Court of Georgia) Date 17 March 2003 Parties The Kiev […] Institute v. “M”, Scientific-Industrial Technological Institute of Tbilisi Case number 3a-17-02 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(b) Source http://prg.supremecourt.ge (website of the Supreme Court of Georgia)
Languages English Summary On 25 September 1998, the Kiev […] Institute (the “Institute”) entered into a contract with the Scientific-Industrial Technological Institute of Tbilisi (“M”) to perform works to remove unauthorized construction in a residential building in Tbilisi. The Institute filed a claim against M before the Kiev Arbitration Court, seeking payment of sums outstanding under the contract. The Institute obtained a favorable award, which it sought to have recognized and enforced in Georgia before the Supreme Court of Georgia. M opposed enforcement of the arbitral award, arguing that it had not been given an opportunity to participate in the arbitration proceedings and had been deprived of the right to be heard. The Supreme Court of Georgia left the application for recognition and enforcement without consideration. Relying on Article V(1)(b) NYC and the Private International Law of Georgia, it held that there was insufficient evidence to show that M had been informed of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, and whether it had been duly served notice of the hearing. The Supreme Court noted that even upon its request to the Kiev Arbitration Court and the Institute, seeking evidence of the service of notice to M, the Kiev Arbitration Court was only able to state that the notice had been sent, but not whether it had been served upon M. The Supreme Court held that procedural violations must not place the parties in an unequal position and that equality of the parties is a fundamental procedural principle, which means that each party has to be given an opportunity to present its case. It found that not notifying a party of the proceedings constitutes a violation of that party’s procedural rights. On this basis, the Supreme Court refused to grant recognition and enforcement of the award. However, it held that it would be open for the Institute to resubmit a request for recognition and enforcement of the award should it obtain evidence establishing that M had been informed, in accordance with the applicable law, of the appointment of the arbitrator, the arbitration proceedings, and the hearing. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1363&opac_view=2 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
