Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in the Republic of Georgia

Giorgi Tsertsvadze, Beiträge und Informationen zum Recht im postsowjetischen Raum (2009) available at http://​mpipriv.​de/​shared/​data/​pdf/​2009_​11_​19_​01.​pdf.

See Giorgi Tsertsvadze, Saertashoriso Arbit’razhi (shedarebiti analizi), Bona Causa Publishing Tbilisi, 2008, pp120–122.

See e.g., Georgian Arbitration Law, Art. 39 (concerning dissenting opinions).

Georgian Arbitration Law, Articles 36-41.

Georgian Arbitration Law, Articles 28-33.

Georgia’s immediate neighbors have an interesting practice with this regard. Despite the fact that Turkey and Azerbaijan are both the members of New York Convention, the recognition procedure for an award rendered in Azerbaijan is governed not by the abovementioned Convention, but by a Bilateral Treaty involving these states. For further reading, see Nuray Eski, Evaluation of the precedents of the Turkish Court of Cassation concerning certain problems for the enforcement of foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention, Istanbul Conference on International Dispute Resolution, A Global Perspective, Beta (2007), p 120.

Giorgi Tsertsvadze, Beiträge und Informationen zum Recht im postsowjetischen Raum (2009) available at http://​mpipriv.​de/​shared/​data/​pdf/​2009_​11_​19_​01.​pdf.

Robert Merkin and Louis Flannery, Arbitration Act 1996, Fourth Edition, Informa, London (2008), p 201.

See Georgian Supreme Court Decision # A 2182-S -72-09 Kahraman, November 19, 2009. See also, Georgian Supreme Court Decision # A 2584-S -86-09 Kahraman, January 14, 2010.

Polestar, a company from Panama initiated arbitration in London against the government of Georgia and in 1999 received an award in its favor. In 2008, the plaintiff applied to the Queen’s Bench in London for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. The court granted the requested enforcement. In September 2009, Polestar submitted a motion to the Supreme Court of Georgia seeking recognition and enforcement of the English Court’s decision. After some deliberation, the Court requested that the Polestar representative present his motion more precisely. In effect, the Court wanted to clarify whether the motion was to enforce the arbitral award or to enforce the decision of the English court regarding the award. Polestar repeatedly stated that it was seeking to enforce the 2008 judgment of rendered by the Queen’s Bench. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 66 of Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) and took the position that the judgment was not enforceable in Georgia. The Supreme Court held that there was nothing to enforce in this judgment because it served solely as confirmation of the arbitral award and had only one goal – to maintain the execution proceedings in England. By stating that the decision was not enforceable due to its legal nature, the Supreme Court effectively refused recognition and enforcement. However, the Court declared that its decision should not be interpreted as a refusal to recognize and enforce the original 1999 arbitral award because it was not the subject of the deliberations in this case. The party had expressly excluded the arbitral award from his motion and demanded only recognition and enforcement of the British court decision. See, Georgian Supreme Court Decision #A 1985-S -68-09 Polestar, March 26, 2010.

Tbilisi Court of Appeal, Decision #2B/2573-10, March 11, 2011.

Georgian Supreme Court Decision, Case No. Na-204-sh-43-03, April 2, 2004.

Arbitration Act 1996, U.K, Art. 17.

See Giorgi Tsertsvadze, Beiträge und Informationen zum Recht im postsowjetischen Raum (2009) available at http://​mpipriv.​de/​shared/​data/​pdf/​2009_​11_​19_​01.​pdf.

Georgian Arbitration Law (2010), Art. 1.

See Tbilisi Court of Appeal, Decision #2B/3048-10, November 3, 2010. See also, Tbilisi Court of Appeal, Decision #2B/2828-10, November 26, 2010; and Tbilisi Court of Appeal, Decision #2B/3124-10, December 13, 2010.

Andreas Börner, “Article III New York Convention” in Herbert Kronke et al. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2010, p 127.

Andres Jana, Angie Armer, and Johanna Klein Kranenberg, “Article V (1) (b) New York Convention” in Herbert Kronke et al. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2010, p 242.

See supra, note 7. The Minsk Convention of 1993 is a treaty between the CIS-Countries that regulates not only mutual judicial assistance in a narrower sense, but also matters of international jurisdiction, applicable law, and reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judicial and, in parts, administrative decisions. For more information, see Kurzynsky-Singer, “Gemeinschaft Unabhängiger Staaten” in Basedow / Hopt / Zimmermann (Ed.) Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts, pp 668-673; and Kurzynsky-Singer, “Minsker Konvention und Kiewer Übereinkommen als Grundlage für die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Entscheidungen in Russland,” Teil 1, WiRO (2010), pp 265 – 270.

See Giorgi Tsertsvadze, Beiträge und Informationen zum Recht im postsowjetischen Raum (2009) available at http://​mpipriv.​de/​shared/​data/​pdf/​2009_​11_​19_​01.​pdf.

For example, such case would be the controversial practice of Tbilisi City Court and Tbilisi Court of Appeal regarding the setting aside procedure of “old regime” awards.

See Finn Madsen, Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, A commentary on the Arbitration Act and the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Ed. 3, New-York (2007), p 333.